Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

St. Francis Primary School, Notting Hill

Mr. Dudley Fishburn: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the governors, teachers, parents and neighbours of St. Francis primary school, Treadgold street, Notting Hill, in my constituency of Kensington. The petition states that the redevelopment of the school is a matter of great urgency because of the highly unsatisfactory conditions in which 325 children are being taught. The proposed redevelopment depends on the closure of Treadgold street, in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The petition has been signed by more than 2,000 people, which constitutes some 5 per cent. of my electorate in the constituency of Kensington.
The petitioners pray
that your honourable House requests the Right Hon. Secretary of State, Department of Transport to grant immediate permission for the closure of Treadgold street so that work on the redevelopment, the plans for which already have been approved by the Department of Education and Science and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, may begin without further delay.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Dudley Fishburn: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Although this is a private Member's Bill, I hope that the House will not think it boastful if I say that it is an important Bill. It will enable new rules to be set that will govern the way in which nearly 500,000 shipments of radioactive and nuclear material go by road in this country every year.
It is a radical Bill in its way, for it gives the Department of Transport powers of entry and inspection and allows penalties to be exacted on those who break the rules when carrying highly dangerous radioactive material on our roads. The regulations that will be enabled by the Bill will set the safety standards for the nuclear and radioactive industries at the highest international levels. They will determine the parameters for nuclear tranport in the generation ahead—a generation which is likely to see the rapid growth in that industry, which is so important to modern life, whether providing nuclear fuel for power plants or cancer-searching radioisotopes to the hospitals. Within the power of the atom lies the certain source of our future energy needs. As we unlock it, we will gain in knowledge—an ally and not an enemy—but only if we are rigorous in controlling that power and in restraining the methods by which it is used, and in the case of the Bill, ensuring that when radioactive material is moved from one place to another it is secure.
Although it is an important Bill, it has not been a controversial one. I am afraid that in this House we often muddle the two. We think that anything that does not kick up a political dust storm cannot be of real worth.
The Bill slipped through to Third Reading with uncommon agility. The Second Reading was over and done with in six minutes flat. The Committee stage, I am afraid, took longer, but in eight minutes from start to finish no critics appeared and thus I bring the Bill to the Floor of the House unamended. In the incomprehensible way, to me at least, that these things work, this Bill, which was ninth in the list of private Member's Bills when it started, is now second and, with a fair wind, it looks like being the first private Member's Bill to reach the statute book this season. There has been good reason for that turn of speed because, by passing the Bill into law, Parliament is bringing Britain into line with its international commitments that were given as long ago as 1985. The deadline for meeting those commitments disgracefully ran out last year without any action having been taken by the United Kingdom, although all our major trading partners have by now taken the necessary steps to comply.
Britain is a leading member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, an arm of the United Nations in Vienna, which lays down standards for the world's radioactive and nuclear industries. That authority has long been concerned with the quality of the regulations that govern the


movement of radioactive materials by road. After all, that is perhaps the moment of their greatest vulnerability. A fuel rod that will soon be surrounded by tonnes of concrete in a power station is on nothing more substantial than a truck when it is being delivered. A radioisotope, which is safe in the hands of a surgeon, has to be handled by a driver or a porter in a hospital.
The International Atomic Energy Agency is concerned, first, because of the sheer number of shipments—about half a million in Britain every year. Some of those shipments are in large trucks trundling to nuclear power stations from the railhead. Sometimes small parts of radioactive material are almost chucked into the back of an engineer's van on the way to measuring the stress in, say, a North sea oil rig.
The powers that the Department of Transport has to oversee such shipments need to be brought up to date because they date back to the last time that the House considered these matters, which was in 1947—a time when the nuclear industry was in its infancy and when there were probably no more than 100 shipments a year by road.
That is one cause for concern, but there is a second. Whenever a shipment of radioactive material goes by boat across the channel, for example, or by air, as do tens of thousands of packets every year, due to the thriving market that Britain has built up in medical exports, the regulations are modern and effective because as soon as they travel outside this country they are governed by regulations set by international agencies. However, if one puts a dollop of radioactive material in the back of a road vehicle, by a curious loophole of our legislative history, the method of enforcing standards of safety and packaging for that material dates back to 1947. Hence the reason for the Bill.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has requested that all its members have a central, competent authority for road transport to make and to enforce the rules. In Britain's case the Bill makes the Department of Transport that authority, which is why I welcome the Minister's presence this morning.
The Bill does not set down the rules. It is an enabling Bill because it is not a matter for laymen like ourselves to write such rules. Besides, the needs and requirements will change constantly. The Bill enables the Secretary of State for Transport to set regulations, which will cover such aspects as the design and nature of containers for radioactive materials, their resistance to burning or crushing, how many small packets, when put together, can be transported safely—as the total radiation grows exponentially—and how such packets should be labelled.
Regulations in such a highly expert and scientific area will be set after close discussion with the industry, and that is entirely right. It is worth pointing out at this stage that the nuclear and radioactive industries have been wholly behind the Bill. For the most part they already more than meet the highest standards and they understand the need to modernise the legislative framework within which they operate. That is something that the nuclear industry welcomes, not something which it fears. Why? Because without the Bill the Department of Transport is only able to make general regulations which fail to reflect the world standards in packaging, labelling and transport documentation. However, such standards are needed if we are

to convince other countries that the United Kingdom applies the United Nations transport regulations of 1985 to its radioactive industry.
Although this legislation would apply only to domestic road transport, it would also cover radioactive material intended for international transit. Therefore, by adopting the International Atomic Energy Agency's standards we shall bring ourselves into line with other countries which compete with the United Kingdom in world markets. Some of those countries have a reputation for using non-tariff barriers to protect their own markets. They say that they will not let in British supplies of medical radio isotopes or nuclear material because they are not packaged up to international scratch. That is an excuse which they can cling to until we pass the regulations for which provision is made in the Bill. We must be able to demonstrate that packages used to transport radioactive material nationally and internationally comply fully with standards laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency. At the moment we cannot.
In view of 1992, what is the position of other EC member countries? After all, they are now our major trading partners, and all the EC countries are members of the IAEA. As such, they are under the same obligations as the United Kingdom, and almost all of them have already adopted the international regulations that I am seeking to introduce by means of the Bill.
The European agreement for transporting dangerous goods by road, to which all EC states are a party, came into effect on 1 January 1990, more than a year ago. In line with other international regulations, it uses the standards laid down in this enabling Bill as guidelines. The provisions of the Bill are aimed at ensuring that the regulations made under it fully reflect the International Atomic Energy Agency's philosophy of building safety into the packages used to transport radioactive materials. It is a philosophy which the agency and its member states have operated effectively for the past 30 years. In stark constrast to much of the criticism of the nuclear industry, we have had an extraordinarily strong record both in this country and in the western world of developing the industry along safe and reasonable lines.
Clause 1 will empower the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors to implement the Bill and to enforce any regulations made under it. Clause 2 will give the Secretary of State power to make a comprehensive set of regulations to cover all aspects of the transport by road of radioactive materials. In clause 3, further provisions set out the circumstances in which an inspector appointed under the Road Traffic Act 1988 could stop a vehicle transporting radioactive packages. An inspector could prohibit the transport of such packages or the use of a particular component in the packaging of nuclear material. Those powers are not available at present to the Department of Transport. However, other agencies that work in the field of nuclear material, such as Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in the Department of the Environment, already have such powers. The Bill therefore gives the Department of Transport powers that it would otherwise not have. It closes a loophole.
If an inspector believes that someone is failing to comply with the regulations, he will be able, under clause 4, to issue an enforcement notice. Such a notice will specify the failure and the steps that must be taken to remedy it. Again, that is something which other agencies have


available to them. What is novel is that under the Bill the regulations apply for the first time to this very important industry.
Clause 5 gives powers of entry and sets out the circumstances in which inspectors and examiners can enter vehicles and premises with or without consent. It also specifies when an inspector may seize evidence.
Finally, clause 6 makes it an offence to contravene or to fail to comply with the regulations made under the Bill. The same clause also contains penalties for the committing of such offences. It will allow prosecution to be either by summons or by indictment, depending on the severity of the offence. Again, the general thrust is that the clause serves only to bring the Secretary of State's powers on the transport of nuclear material by road into line with those that are available in other areas of the nuclear industry.
With those provisions, the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that when he makes regulations they can be effectively enforced. Then we shall be sure that the increase in the transport of nuclear material for industry, medical use and engineering can be effectively controlled.
It is a good Bill. It addresses an immediate and real need. It closes a loophole. It will set guidelines for a generation. Those guidelines will be the world's best practice. The Bill is so sensible and overdue that the Opposition have mounted no criticims of it, for which I am grateful. It is supported by the industry, by users and by the Government. It sets a new legislative benchmark for the movement of what are potentially the most hazardous materials known to man. It dusts off legislation that was last touched in 1947. It is necessary if we are to meet our international obligations. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.

Ms. Joan Walley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on bringing the Bill before the House. As it stands, the Bill is not controversial and, to the extent that it goes, we very much welcome it. However, there are wider considerations that it is appropriate to bring before the House on Third Reading.
Today is the fifth anniversay of the Chernobyl disaster. Nearly all of us can remember exactly where we were five years ago today when we had that terrible rainstorm and realised that a good part of the contamination was spreading from Chernobyl all round the world and finding its way to parts of our country. It is right and proper, therefore, that today of all days, five years on, we should be dealing with a measure that concerns the transportation of radioactive substances. If ever the House needed a reminder of how important an issue this is, it need look no further than at what happened at Chernobyl.
It is also important to point out that five years after Chernobyl there are still problems and that there will continue to be problems for thousands of years. They will affect the people who live in that part of the Soviet Union. There will continue to be problems over the safety requirements for the reactors that continue to function there. Moreover, there will continue to be problems over the transportation of radioactive material. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to do everything that can be done to impose the highest possible standards for the occasions when there is no alternative but for radioactive substances to be transported by one mode or another.
Although I do not take issue with the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, I take issue with the Government. The Opposition believe that an integrated transport system is needed that will enable goods, whether or not they are dangerous, to be transported safely by different modes of transport. We believe that the highest possible safety standards should apply to all those modes and that such standards should apply to radioactive goods, just as they apply to the transport of all forms of dangerous goods.
The Opposition are greatly concerned about the fact that although in this Session the Government have introduced five transport Bills and found sufficient parliamentary time to deal with issues that they consider to be the highest on their list of priorities, they have not found time to address this issue. They have introduced a measure to privatise the trust ports, which are likely to be sold off. Today we learnt that the hospital trust at Guy's is to shed 600 jobs. However, the Government have not found time to bring before the House a Bill that would deal comprehensively with the transportation of all dangerous goods by all modes of transport—ship, rail, road and air. We criticise the Government for their piecemeal approach. A major cornerstone of our policy is the integration of the transport of all dangerous goods and the making of detailed regulations to cover their transportation, including packaging, monitoring, enforcement and all the other issues that need to be covered if we are to ensure that when dangerous goods are transported the highest possible standards apply.
Only yesterday I discussed with freight forwarders in the south-west region, including south Wales, their concern that regulations governing the movement of goods by road to Europe are incompatible with those that apply to the movement of goods by sea. Their great concern is that the convention governing the carriage of goods by road, imposed by most other European countries as a mandatory requirement, has a get-out clause in this country. There are big loopholes concerning the carriage of all sorts of dangerous goods. The Bill should be viewed within the framework which could exist, but which, because of lack of political priority, does not exist.
The regulations governing the transport of radioactive material in the United Kingdom implement International Atomic Energy Agency regulations, which are kept under continual review. Major revisions take place every 10 years and the most recent was in 1990. The point has already been made that it is disgraceful that the latest regulations were not implemented at the earliest opportunity and that the introduction of tighter regulations has been left to a private Member's Bill. I condemn the Government for that.
Within the United Kingdom, different regulations apply to transport by the four modes of road, air, sea and rail. The Bill is designed, as we have heard, to update the legislation on the transportation of radioactive material by road and to bring it into line with the IAEA regulations. We welcome the fact that the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations and that inspectors or examiners are provided with the authority to impose prohibitions on the driving of a vehicle or on the transportation of a radioactive package. They will be able to serve enforcement notices if there is a failure to comply with the prohibitions. It is also important that powers of


entry should be provided for inspectors or examiners and the Bill should be enforced by means of a series of penalties if offences are committed.
We have one concern about the Bill which we could not raise during its earlier stages and which we might not have raised anyway, because we want the Bill to reach the statute book. Had a comprehensive Bill been introduced, we should have wanted the regulations to provide for prior notification of the movement of any radioactive substances. Local authorities, the emergency services and the nuclear-free zone movement feel very strongly about that. We believe that there are compelling reasons why the emergency services and local authorities should be made aware in advance of the passage through their areas of all radioactive, toxic and hazardous substances. It is impossible to draw up effective emergency plans if the emergency services are given no information until an accident occurs. I urge the Minister to give that some consideration when drawing up the regulations.
More information about freight lorries carrying dangerous materials could prevent accidents, injury and loss of life. Two years ago there was an accident near Peterborough where a lorry carrying explosives caught fire. The fire brigade was called and, tragically, one firefighter died when the explosives detonated. The fire brigade had not been notified of the contents of the lorry and therefore had been unable to make contingency plans. I hope that the Minister will have regard to that important matter.
Luckily, the contents of the lorry were not radioactive. It would have been much more devastating had the fire brigade been called to deal with an accident involving the release of radioactivity without being given prior warning.
It has always been claimed that low-level radioactive substances make up the vast majority of freight transported by road and are not considered to be a great threat to safety and the environment. However, spent fuel rods for research make regular journeys by road from Harwell to Dounreay for reprocessing. A considerable quantity of such goods is transported by road.
Up to 50 research reactors in 22 countries use the same type of fuel and may wish to do business with plants in Britain. Foreign business could eventually build up to £25 million a year. The transport methods and routes which could be used in that context are uncertain, but it is likely that more spent fuels would arrive by sea at Scrabster. However, large shipments from Berlin, Holland, Saxony and perhaps from Australia would have to come into larger ports and thereafter be transported by road.
There would be a greater threat to the environment from the risk of an accident involving spent HEU fuel in transit. The International Atomic Energy Agency requires flasks for transporting spent fuel to be designed to survive the impact of a 9 m fall, which is equivalent to an impact speed of about 30 mph; being engulfed by fire for 30 minutes at a temperature of 800 deg. C; and immersion at a depth of 200 m for one hour. The independent consulting engineers Large and Associates consider those tests not particularly onerous.
Last year there were several attempts to ship from Germany to Hull radioactive material which was to be sent to Dounreay by road. Only the refusal of dock workers in Rotterdam and Hull to handle the cargo prevented

shipment in an unsafe vessel. The shipment was first attempted by a container ship. Then it was proposed that it should be carried by roll-on, roll-off ferry. Such an approach in shipping can be easily translated to all modes of transport, with industry taking the attitude that the flasks are so indestructible that it is unimportant how they are transported. However, nuclear explosions in the relatively controlled environment of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island caused disasters on a devastating scale. The risk of transporting weapon-grade radioactive substances are obvious causes for concern and are one reason why in the United States there is a moratorium on imports until proper environmental assessments have been made.
Had there been a comprehensive Bill on the subject, we should have tabled an amendment to ensure that regulations apply equally to transshipments dealt with by the Ministry of Defence and by the Department of Transport. The road transportation of nuclear weapons which are not subject even to the most elementary regulations because the Ministry of Defence is exempt from them is another cause for concern.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware of a report by the panel on the safety of nuclear weapons. On 18 December the United States House Armed Services Committee was informed by eminent physicists that flaws in past computer modelling can be indentified and that a major consequence of new modelling is the realisation that unintended nuclear detonation presents a greater risk than was previously estimated.
I should refer to representations that have been made concerning the road transport of nuclear weapons. That issue is not covered by the Bill, but would have been in a comprehensive Bill. It is particularly important in the light of the American report on nuclear weapon safety which was highlighted in The Guardian earlier this week.
Many local authorities, including that in Stoke-on-Trent, have made representations to the Department of Transport. They have considered the report of Large and Associates entitled: "Transportation of nuclear weapons through urban areas in the United Kingdom." That report was commissioned by the steering committee of nuclear-free zone local authorities, which are greatly concerned about possible disasters, including a major release of radioactivity from a nuclear warhead which could affect areas up to 40 km away and the consequences for the immediate population. If the Department of Transport has any concern about an integrated transport policy, it should consult the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence to come up with some emergency arrangements which, instead of leaving us ill prepared to deal with accidents, would enable us to take the necessary precautions.
It is also possible that road accidents could involve unintentional detonation of weapons. The worst possible scenario would be a nuclear explosion, not just a limited leak or a radioactive cloud. The fact that at least two journeys involving radioactive freight are made every week gives rise to considerable concern. I relate those findings in the context of today's debate to emphasise the need for a totally integrated approach to the transportation of radioactive and hazardous substances.
The Labour party supports freedom of information and open discussion about public safety issues. We believe that we can learn from the American experience of ensuring that information is publicly available instead of hidden behind a cloak of secrecy. Public safety can only benefit


from increased openness and local authorities with responsibility for dealing with disasters should have the necessary information to enable them to deal with accidents involving the transportation of nuclear waste.
We believe that environmental considerations should be paramount in any transport policy involving safety. Efforts should be made to minimise the amount of radioactive substances transported, instead of planning to move such substances from A to B along the safest route and allowing profits to be made.
The introduction of inspectors is certainly a step in the right direction towards greater regulation and safety. However, those inspectors must not be policy administrators from the Department of Transport, but must have experience of dealing with road accidents and be experts in safety and dangerous materials. The Bill refers to the financial considerations. I have grave fears that not enough inspectors may be appointed. How many people does the Minister expect to be appointed to deal with those new regulations? If they are to be associated with the radioactive waste movement unit and inspectorate at the Department of Transport, it is essential that there are enough inspectors to enforce the regulations.
I draw the Minister's attention to the question of spot checks. Back in June 1989, the Atomic Energy Authority was found guilty of allowing one of its vehicles to be used in an unroadworthy condition and was fined £1,600. It is really not on for such materials to be transported in vehicles that are not safe to be on the road. There are huge question marks over public safety.
Let me gibe an even more recent example. In late February this year a load of spent fuel from India—part of a 30-year-old contract—was travelling by road from Felixstowe to Dounreay. At Dounreay, it was found to be contaminated and the contamination was traced back to Felixstowe, where a crane was dismantled and taken to Harlow for checks. Even though there is much secrecy surrounding the transportation of radioactive material, we know that there was contamination at Felixstowe. But as there was no legal obligation on the carrier to monitor en route, it was not discovered until the load reached Dounreay. The contamination involved will be a persistent problem for a 200-year period at least, given that caesium has a half life of 30 years. That is why we believe that the new regulations should include proper provision for spot checks so that a load can be monitored anywhere along its route.
With the large-scale transportation of weapons and standard radioactive substances on our roads, people will rightly be concerned that the regulations are rigorously enforced. Where necessary, regulations should be strengthened to ensure maximum environmental and public safety. The Bill takes us one step nearer to that objective. It would have been much better had the provisions been incorporated in a comprehensive Bill dealing with all aspects of the transportation of dangerous goods and the various modes of transport used. Having said that, I do not wish to delay proceedings on the Bill, which is long overdue. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that I have made and that the Bill will soon reach the statute book.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I join hon. Members in welcoming this important Bill and commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on the thoroughly professional way in which he has carried it through the House. I hope that it will meet with equal success—and lack of delay—in the other place, and that it will reach the statute books very soon. I apologise to my hon. Friend for not having been able to speak in support of the Bill on Second Reading, but he had only six minutes, and he seemed to be doing perfectly well without my intervention.
My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt defend himself, but I feel that I cannot let the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) go without comment. The hon. Lady demanded an integrated transport policy. Heaven preserve us from such a monstrosity. Fortunately, no Labour Government have ever managed to achieve such a thing. The Department of Transport is quite big enough. The idea of a huge department in Whitehall deciding where all the transshipments of every commodity are to go and how they will all match—and, of course, consulting the unions at every stage—fills me with horror.

Ms. Walley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Currie: No. The hon. Lady has had half an hour; it is my go now.
That is not the way to run a modern, complex, industrial and commercial society. It just does not work, and it is about time that the Labour party realised that and did with that policy what it has done with most of its others, which is to drop them in favour of more intelligent philosophies.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North referred to the delay. I understand that the Bill was introduced in the last Session, but was delayed because of technical problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington therefore deserves even more credit for introducing it in this Session.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said that the emergency services should be advised every time there is to be a transshipment of dangerous material, particularly radioactive material. As I shall explain further in a moment, I have considerable interest in the transportation of radioactive material. A fair number of the 500,000 transports every year go through my constituency involve work conducted by my constituents. The thought that the emergency services must be notified on every single occasion fills me with horror. Must we really devise a system of telling the emergency services, setting up road blocks and God knows what? It is a preposterous proposal.
Is the hon. Lady saying that Derbyshire county council should be advised every time Derbyshire royal infirmary requires a new isotope for its cancer treatment machine? How long would it take for the bureaucracy to deal with the request? What is my constituent with cancer to do in the meantime? Is he or she to wait until some stupid little bureaucrat in Matlock has decided whether the competent professional company that has produced the isotope is capable of transporting it safely through south Derbyshire and installing it safely at the hospital? The whole idea is absolutely ridiculous.

Ms. Walley: Does not the hon. Lady think that there is any merit at all in the proposal? Does not she realise that we are dealing with radioactive substances, nuclear weapons and highly inflammable material, and unless the emergency services know what material is being transported they might deal with it in a wholly inappropriate way? Public safety is at stake and should be given the highest priority. It is possible to deal with the matter in a reasonable way.

Mrs. Currie: The hon. Lady is shifting her ground. That is not what the nuclear-free zone exercise involved. She now says that most nuclear material and most dangerous material does not fall into the relevant category. That is not what she said earlier, and she has not answered my question.

Ms. Walley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Currie: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady again. It is about time that I had my say. The hon. Lady can sit and listen for a minute.
Let me pursue the matter further. Like the hon. Lady's local council, Derbyshire county council is a member of the nuclear-free zones international committee, or whatever it is called. Some years ago, when it got involved in this silly activity, Derbyshire announced that no nuclear or radioactive material would be in use anywhere on its patch. That gave rise to guffaws of derision because it was plain—and the hon. Lady has shown this again today—that those who proposed such policies did not have the faintest idea how a modern society functions in the 1980s and 1990s.
We have large amounts of nuclear material in Derbyshire, as is the case everywhere in the country. The quantities may not be huge, but nuclear materials are used in a large number of places. For a start, we have some of the finest hospitals in the country, which are outstanding in their treatment of cancer. We are immensely proud of them. I want them to function properly in the interests of the patients concerned. We have extremely strict rules to protect the staff who use the equipment. As a former Minister of Health, I am only too aware of how important such equipment can be, how strict the rules are and how good the training is. Thousands of people owe their lives to the availability of nuclear material for treatment.
In my part of the world—not far from the hon. Lady's constituency—we have industry of the highest standard. Nuclear material is used to establish the quality and high standards that we need in modern engineering. We have some of the highest-tech industry in the world. We are world beaters. We have no fears about 1992 or a Japanese invasion. We can take on anyone and beat them. One reason for that is that we are not frightened of new technologies. We create, design, implement, install and monitor those technologies and we are certain that we know how to use them. The materials have to be transported.
Most important of all, Derby is the heart of the nuclear industry in Britain in ways that are perhaps not generally appreciated. It is in the nature of the way in which the industry has developed in Derby that on the whole the industrialists have kept fairly quiet about it. The time is approaching, however, when we must recognise the quality of the work that is being done and its importance

to the nation and the rest of the world. I am afraid that that will mean more transportation of materials in future, and that is why the Bill is so important.
We manufacture nuclear power stations in Derby. A large number of businesses are involved in the manufacture, design and contracting of nuclear power stations which go all over the world. We also have a company of which we are immensely proud—Rolls-Royce and Associates. It was set up some 40 years ago when the Americans agreed under various defence contracts to transfer technology on the nuclear power pack for submarines from the United States to Britain. RR and A was then set up and it has been functioning since with not a whisper of criticism. Indeed, I suspect that many people do not even know that the firm is there, right in the heart of Derby. It employs over 1,000 people. It has probably the largest concentration of PhDs outside any university. We have nuclear physicists of the highest calibre in commercial industry. We are immensely proud of the work that they do.
I visited Rolls-Royce and Associates not long ago. To say that I was immensely impressed is an understatement. My query to it was why the company did not talk more about the work that it did, for now it makes the nuclear power packs for not only submarines which carry nuclear weapons but many other submarines. It is now standard practice to equip most submarines with power packs that do not need renewing in the conventional way. They are nuclear power packs. They run silently and for many months without any need for maintenance. They are extremely safe. There is no problem in recruiting people to work on those submarines.
It always struck me as ironic that much of Derby was represented for many years by that noted pacifist Philip Noel-Baker when meanwhile in the middle of the city we were manufacturing the most essential part of nuclear submarines. Perhaps it is not so ironic if one considers that the very existence of the nuclear deterrent and nuclear submarines have kept the peace for so long.
I asked Rolls-Royce and Associates for its views on the Bill. I received a letter this week from Mr. Tony Jaggers, the company quality manager. He said:
we believe that the Bill is a responsible attempt at regulation. Compliance should only enhance the image of the nuclear industry.
He was right about that. We need to take the industry a substantial step further. We need to lose our fear of the nuclear industry. We need to put on one side our feeling that radioactivity is a magic miasma against which we should have incantations and regulations and that we should cloak the industry in the bureaucratic blanket that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North suggested.
That is why this legislation is so timely. We are updating legislation which goes back to 1948. If the Labour party had been so worried about the transport of radioactive materials, it had plenty of opportunities in the 1960s and 1970s to update the regulations. It never took them. It is a credit to this Government that we have.
It is about time that we started revising our ideas, especially about nuclear power. Let me describe my experiences. My constituency is in the Trent valley. We have been mining coal for a long time. Within sight of my home in south Derbyshire there are four coal-fired power stations. There are several more just over the hill. It is well known in my constituency that I bought a cottage in France, in the Loire valley. I like valleys. Not far from the


cottage is the nuclear power station of St. Antoine. There are four nuclear power stations in the Loire valley. Therefore, as a housekeeper and a domestic person, I can make comparisons between life in the Trent and Loire valleys.
The first and most obvious difference is that the air in the Loire valley is a lot cleaner than that in the Trent valley. I can go back to my house there and find that it is not dusty. The air is breathable. The plants in the garden do not have a rime of dust on them. Yet in south Derbyshire I and my constituents are for ever trying to keep our homes clean. There is a permanent film of dust in every house, in every garden and on every car. I can leave my car for a week in France and at the end of the week it will still be clean. If I leave it for three days in the car park at Derby station, it needs to go to the car wash.
We have taken for granted and willingly accepted for too long the risks associated with non-nuclear power and all the dangers that go with it. Does anyone in Britain count the cost of our being so dependent on non-nuclear power? Does anyone work out the effect on the chests and hearts of my constituents and other people who live in areas where power stations endlessly pollute the atmosphere, even with all the effort—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am finding it difficult to relate what the hon. Lady is saying to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mrs. Currie: I am making a point which relates to what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said and the importance of the Bill to the future development of our country. We have for so long taken it for granted that we cannot use nuclear power in this country or that it should be kept to a small proportion. Countries which do not take such a view. and therefore transport more nuclear material, do not have that problem.

Mr. Richard Holt: Has my hon. Friend read the latest edition of Euratom in which it is announced that the Swedish Government, which had a policy of phasing out all nuclear power stations, have reversed that policy on a multi-party basis? Irrespective of the party in power, the Swedish Government will move towards nuclear power precisely because of the arguments that my hon. Friend makes.

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure that he is right. It is noticeable that the Swedish Government are changing their policies on many issues and perhaps moving into the modern capitalist world in several welcome ways. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The Bill is much more important than the relatively short debates on it have shown. It will enable us to transport nuclear material more safely. If we need to revise all our ideas about the type of power that we shall use in future, we need to be sure that we can transport the materials safely. Of course, we can. But whenever people talk about nuclear power, they talk about the risks and the cost. The aim of the Bill is partly to reduce those risks.
However no one has ever worked out the true costs associated with not using nuclear power. No one has worked out the costs of pollution and its effect on the lives of people living near non-nuclear power stations. No one has ever worked out the costs of cleaning up after coal mining. Planning applications have been made in my

constituency for cleaning up many worked-out coal mine sites. The cost is horrendous. No one has worked out the costs of deaths in the coal mining industry.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned Chernobyl. It is entirely appropriate that we should think about such matters now, on the fifth anniversary of that dreadful disaster. She mentioned Three Mile island. She did not mention the two young men who died in the roof fall in a coal mine in my constituency not long ago. She did not mention the 24-year-old man who was pulled out after the accident minus his foot. The hon. Lady went on about unexpected explosions. She did not mention that most of the coal mines in her area and mine were subject to spontaneous combustion for many years. She did not mention that one of the results of that was an 18-month underground fire in the south Derbyshire and north-west Leicestershire coalfield. That caused a lot of fear and worry partly becauses it manifested itself to everyone in the neighbourhood. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) dug up their potatoes from their allotments ready roasted. That is what the coal industry does. My constituents have walked away from that industry without a backward glance.
We have an old power industry in my area, the coal industry, which is facing decline. We also have a new industry, the nuclear power industry, which I am sure will take the place of the old one.
In the years to come as, with the help of this Bill, material is transported by road through my constituency according to the highest possible standards—the Bill establishes standards which are world leaders—Rolls-Royce and Associates will not just put its nuclear power packs just into submarines but will adapt them for domestic and commercial use. I am happy to predict that the day will come when from the start we shall provide how equipment for nuclear power is to be transported, how it is to be inserted, perhaps buried in the ground, and how the disposal procedures are to operate so that many problems associated with the industry will no longer cause anxiety.
We now have half a century of experience of using and transporting nuclear materials in this country and abroad. Naturally, there are risks. It is not possible to wrench energy from nature without some sort of risk. The Bill is an intelligent and sophisticated part of the world's efforts to reduce that risk, and I commend it and my hon. Friend's efforts.

Mr. John Townend: I join my colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on having the good fortune to come so high in the ballot and on his choice of Bill. I am particularly pleased because I canvassed for him before he was elected at that great by-election victory in his constituency. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), I apologise for the fact that I was unable to be present on Second Reading.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on piloting his Bill so expeditiously through Committee. As he said, the Committee sitting started at 10.30 am and ended eight minutes later, at 22 minutes to 11 o'clock. An even greater achievement was that he managed to get the Bill through Committee unamended. That must be a tribute to his


eloquence and good standing. As one who has always believed in financial rectitude, I am impressed that he did not draw the £200 that is available to Members who introduce a private Member's Bill. His career in this place will prosper. I should like to see him eventually moving with those attributes to the Treasury.
All hon. Members will owe my hon. Friend a great debt on behalf of their constituents. The transport of radioactive materials is important and the general public are anxious that it should be carried out under maximum safety regulations. I understand that there is a large number of shipments a year and perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify how many. I noticed that a figure of 300,000 was mentioned in Committee, whereas 500,000 was given on Second Reading. That is a material difference and it would be helpful if my hon. Friend could clarify the matter when he replies to the debate.
The shipments range from nuclear waste to medical isotopes and sometimes go to ferries for export, to airports or to hospitals. My constituency is adjacent to the ferry terminals in Hull from where North Sea Ferries operates five ferries a day to Zeebrugge and Rotterdam. My home town of Hull, which used to be the country's third port but which declined year after year because of the national dock labour scheme until it was no longer in the first 10, is benefiting from this Government's wisdom in abolishing the National Dock Labour Board. As a result, traffic through the port is increasing rapidly.
Some of the 300,000 or 500,000 shipments, whichever is the correct figure, will undoubtedly travel along roads in my constituency, so my constituents are particularly grateful for the Bill. They have considerable experience of vehicles carrying hazardous loads travelling on our local roads because we have a large chemicals plant near the ferry terminal, at Saltend, We also have North sea gas terminals and a certain amount of hazardous material is transported to them. Therefore, road safety in relation to hazardous loads is a high priority in their minds.
Clearly radioactive materials are most hazardous loads. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South that people sometimes get carried away and go over the top when talking about nuclear waste. Therefore, my constituents believe that there should be strict controls and safety regulations.
The present controls are derived from the Radioactive Substances Act 1948 and are now inadequate. The United Kingdom is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency which is centred in Vienna and is a specialist agency of the United Nations. As members of that important body, we are bound by its rules. As it has insisted that all its members should have more up-to-date regulations to control the transport of nuclear materials by road, my hon. Friend's Bill is opportune and appropriate.
It has been mentioned that the Bill should have passed through the House last year. It would have done but for a technical hitch. Clearly it has the support of the Government. My hon. Friend has been public spirited in giving his slot high in the ballot over to a Bill which is of such public importance.
As my hon. Friend said, it is an enabling Bill. It allows the Department of Transport as the competent authority

to make regulations, which the Minister will be able to keep up to date, and to respond to further regulations issued by the IAEA in Vienna.
Clause 2 sets out all the subjects to be covered by the regulations. My constituents will be particularly relieved that under clause 2(1)(a) the Secretary of State may make regulations
to prevent any injury to health, or any damage to property or to the environment, being caused by, or by an incident arising out of, the transport of radioactive material".
I particularly support clause 2(2)(a) which concerns
the design of packaging for radioactive material and the manufacture and maintenance of packaging components
That is important because the public need to be assured that, if there is an accident involving a vehicle carrying radioactive materials, there is no possibility of that packaging being damaged to the extent that radioactive materials could leak from the vehicle and contaminate people or goods. The packaging therefore must comply with strict design specifications so that it can withstand any impact that it is likely to receive as a result of a serious road accident.
Clause 2(2)(b) relates to clear labelling. That is also important, because, in the event of an accident, it is necessary for the emergency services to be aware of the problem that they may face. Given the nature of radioactive materials, it is equally important that their storage and handling, as well as their transportation, are strictly regulated.
Clause 2(2)(c) relates to
the placarding of vehicles used to transport such packages
That is important for two reasons: to aid the emergency services—the police and fire service—in the event of an accident; and to reassure the public. The public are frightened of hazardous materials being carried in secret. It is therefore important that hazardous loads are clearly marked when transported.
Clause 2(2)(d) relates to
the keeping of records and the furnishing of information".
That is important not only for reasons of safety but for public confidence. It must be right that any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any regulation made by the Secretary of State should be guilty of an offence—it could well be a serious one.
Clause 3 relates to prohibitions and directions. It must be correct for an inspector or an examiner to have the right to prohibit the driving of a vehicle which has been used to carry radioactive materials or packages if either that vehicle or any radioactive package carried in it fails to comply with the regulations made by the Secretary of State.
It is right that clause 3(1)(b) should enable an inspector or examiner to prohibit the driving of a vehicle if
the vehicle, or any radioactive package which is or was being transported by it, has been involved in an accident".
The inspector or an examiner has a similar right under clause 3(1)(c) if
any radioactive package which was being transported by the vehicle, or any radioactive material which was contained in such a package, has been lost or stolen
It is vital that such dangerous materials should be transported in properly designed packages. It is therefore important for an inspector to have the power available to him in clause 3(2) to prohibit the transport of any radioactive package that he believes has failed to comply with the regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend has spoken specifically about the design of the packaging and the safety of the vehicle, but are there any constraints in the Bill relating to the person who will drive that vehicle? If a person passed his heavy goods vehicle driving test 15 or 20 years ago—before he had his bronchitis, arthritis and his eyesight started to deteriorate—would he still be allowed to get behind the wheel of a vehicle transporting radioactive material? Are there no controls over such a person? If not, that is a weakness in the Bill which we should consider, even at this stage. We should ensure not only that the packaging and the vehicle are right, so that people are happy, but that the drivers are right. After all, most accidents occur as a result of human failure.

Mr. Townend: My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point which I do not believe has been dealt with in the Bill. It is a pity that my hon. Friend was not on the Committee as he might have tabled a relevant amendment. No doubt when my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington replies to the debate he will he tell my hon. Friend whether he has considered that point and whether there are particular reasons why there is no specific clause on that matter in the Bill. There is no doubt that it is no good going to all the expense of introducing safeguards for the packaging and labelling of the radioactive materials and the placarding of the vehicles if there are no strict controls over those who can drive the vehicles. That matter should be considered.
I want to make progress as I know that there is another important Bill before the House today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Keep going".] I am pleased that hon. Members find my speech so fascinating and want me to continue. I shall do my best to oblige.
If an accident occurs, the first requirement is to ensure the safety of the public and for that reason clause 3(4) is essential. It is vital that the inspector should have the power to remove a vehicle to a safe place. Subsection (4) states:
Where an inspector or examiner imposes a prohibition under subsection (1) above, he may also by a direction in writing require the person in charge of the vehicle to remove it (and, if it is motor vehicle drawing a trailer, also to remove the trailer) to such place and subject to such conditions as are specified in the direction; and the prohibition shall not apply to the removal of the vehicle or trailer in accordance with the direction.
That is an important power.
I have one further question to put to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington which I hope he can clarify. Does the Bill apply to Scotland? I notice that Northern Ireland is mentioned and has been dealt with separately, but it is vital that the Bill should apply to Scotland. I know that we have the queer situation in this place where sometimes we have to produce separate Bills for the two countries.
When one imposes regulations, one must also consider the possibility of their being breached. In a serious situation involving health and safety the penalties for a breach of the regulations should not be insignificant. Clause 6(2) provides:
Any person guilty of an offence under section 5(5) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
I am not sure what that level is, but I hope that that fine is substantial as it is important that the regulations are complied with because we need to keep public confidence in the transportation of radioactive material.
Clause 6(3) states:
Any person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall be liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both;
That seems a reasonably stiff penalty. Subsection (3)(b) sets down the penalty on summary conviction as
a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months or to both
Subsection (4) provides:
The court by or before which any person is convicted of an offence under section 2(4) or 3(8) above in respect of any radioactive material may order the material to be destroyed or disposed of and any expenses reasonably incurred in connection with the destruction or disposal to be defrayed by that person.
I was rather amused by clause 7, which reads:
Any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of this Act shall be payable out of money provided by Parliament.
I have not noticed whether that provision is in every Act, but it seems strange. Nobody would expect the Secretary of State to pay out of his own pocket the money spent as a consequence of the Act's provisions.
I shall close by saying that I am convinced—

Mr. Ron Davies: It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) put it on record that his real interest is not in this Bill but in the one that follows. The following Bill is an important animal welfare measure to which the hon. Gentleman takes exception. Will he explain why he did not attend the Second Reading debate, which involved only a six-minute speech, and why he did not attend the Committee where the proceedings were completed in eight minutes? Will he also explain why he has not tabled any amendments up to Third Reading but has now made the longest speech on the Bill? Will he confirm that he has no interest in the Bill but merely seeks to delay proceedings so that he can kill the animal welfare measure?

Mr. Townend: The hon. Member is most presumptuous. He cannot have heard my speech. I apologised—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South—for not being able to be present for the Second Reading debate as I had constituency engagements. On Fridays most hon. Members have engagements.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the next important Bill. If he looks behind him, he will see that there is nobody there. Therefore, the Bill cannot be that important to the Labour party. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech, he would have understood that, as busy roads from the ferry terminal and from the port of Hull run through my constituency, I have a legitimate constituency interest in this Bill. Because of the important chemical works and North sea gas terminals in my constituency, my constituents are more aware than those of most right hon. and hon. Members of the dangers of carrying hazardous materials.
The hon. Gentleman is right: I have a great interest in the next Bill because my constituency has the largest concentration of pig farmers in the country. If that Bill is passed, many of them will go bankrupt, so I am also here for that Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman was wrong and presumptuous to say—or to insinuate—that I have no interest in this Bill or no right to speak on it. He went over


the top when he spoke about attendance at the Committee. He knows as well as I do how rarely hon. Members who are not members of Committees attend those Committees.

Mr. Ron Davies: The record is accurate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was listening to his speech at the Bar of the House and I followed his arguments carefully. I did not suggest that he had no right to speak on the Bill. I recognise and uphold that right. I was questioning his motives rather than his right. I am grateful that he has confirmed his objection and his wish to kill the animal welfare measure which follows the Bill.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that he has an important constituency interest. I should have thought that his cause and the interests of his constituents would best be served by bringing the debate to a close so that we can proceed to Third Reading and hasten the Bill's passage into law.

Mr. Townend: Again, the hon. Gentleman is presumptuous. If my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Spalding—

Sir Richard Body: Not Spalding anymore.

Mr. Townend: If my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) listens to my amendments and has a heart for the poor pig farmers in my constituency, he will accept them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not anticipate debates that may come later.

Mr. Townend: I apologise, but, with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) accused me of having said that I wished to kill the Bill. I did not say that. I am saying that, if the amendments were accepted, I should be happy to vote for the Bill because they would mean that our pig farmers would not be at a disadvantage compared with European pig farmers.
It is important for my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington to see that all hon. Members who vote, vote for the Bill. I shall give him the opportunity to see that by calling a Division. I am convinced that the Bill will be passed and I do not expect anybody to vote against it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. After a relatively short time in Parliament, he will have made a small piece of parliamentary history by having successfully introduced and steered the Fishburn Bill through the House.
I strongly support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South about the importance of nuclear energy. There is no doubt that the industrial revival in France is very much based on cheap energy

which comes mainly from nuclear power. As she said, as we advance into the nuclear age, the safe transportation of nuclear waste will become increasingly important. In a few years the people who do not realise it now will realise then what an important contribution the Bill will have made. There is no doubt that many people in this country have suffered from hydrocarbon fuels. We know the problems about coal mines which my hon. Friend mentioned.
I shall not detain the House any longer as we have important business to do, but again I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): If I correctly detect the feeling in the House, it is that we should move as quickly as possible to conclude Third Reading.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on successfully steering the Bill to Third Reading and confirm the Government's full support for his efforts. It is an important Bill and, were it not for my hon. Friend's generosity in giving up his place in the private Members' ballot for this measure, we should not have been guaranteed that it would be on the statute book this Session.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) raised a number of issues. She explained to me that she must attend a constituency engagement—as I, too, must do shortly—so I shall write to her with the details of those issues. However, most of them were irrelevant to the core of the Bill. She was especially interested in the issue of inspectors. At the first stage, there will be approximately 10 inspectors and 215 traffic examiners. That is the correct level of enforcement to begin with, but it will be kept under review. I have great pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.

Mr. Richard Holt: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on introducing the Bill. However, he has done so on behalf of the Government. With respect, I must say that this is not a private Member's Bill; it is a piece of Government legislation. As it is a piece of Government legislation, we should be debating it not on a Friday morning, but properly in Government time. It should be introduced by a Minister and opposed by the Opposition and we should debate it in that context. Although it may have been slightly offensive to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) made a contribution, we must put it on record that although we congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington on getting a Bill through the House of Commons, we believe that it is not a private Member's Bill, but Government legislation. Is it good or bad Government legislation?

Orders of the Day — Guy's Hospital

11 am

Ms. Harriet Harman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I have given you notice. Will a Health Minister make a statement to the House about the cut of 600 jobs at Guy's hospital? Will anyone take responsibility for that, or is the Government's attitude, "Guy's? It has opted out and is nothing to do with us any more"? Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, use your influence to bring a Minister to the House to answer for the shortage of funds that has led to the jobs being axed, or is it the case that now that Guy's has opted out, the only accountability is to the balance sheet, not to the patients or the local community? The Prime Minister is to have a health summit tomorrow. Scrapping the national health service changes must be at the top of his agenda.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be helpful if you could tell the House whether you have been given any idea of the Government's response to the knowledge that they were given this morning that requests were being made for Ministers to come to the House to answer the complaints about the sudden announcement of the cuts at Guy's hospital, which is in my constituency.
The case raises an issue for the first time. It is the first such announcement since self-governing hospital trusts came into operation on 1 April. The constitutional problem may be that Ministers are reluctant to come to the House because they are suddenly saying that they are no longer answerable for self-governing hospital trusts. If that is why the Secretary of State or his Ministers are not here—I understand that although the Secretary of State may not be in London, Ministers are in the Department today—it cannot be right.
The argument for self-government is that the hospital is now directly accountable to the Government and that the local health authority has been cut out. The House needs an assurance that at the least on Monday if not today, because we must give the Government the opportunity to get their argument together, given that they will meet at Chequers tomorrow to discuss health service policy, the Secretary of State will come to the House to explain how it is possible for 600 jobs, one eighth of the work force, to go from the local hospital without a reduction in care for the community.
I am often in the hospital——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order. He cannot go into the merits of the case, especially during private Members' time.

Mr. Hughes: I will be brief. Ministers need to come to the House because the statement made on behalf of the hospital yesterday—not publicly, as there has been no communication with elected representatives and no alerting of local Members of Parliament—is that there will be no reduction in care. It has even been said that the cuts are being made to advance the care of the patients. That cannot be true. Someone must explain to the House how it is possible for employees of the public health service to make what is clearly a misleading statement from which many people are likely to suffer. If we can have an announcement today that there will be a statement on

Monday, it will at least be possible to question the Secretary of State on what could be a matter of precedent affecting many people, many hospitals and many workers in the health service throughout England and Wales.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: The self-governing trust to which hon. Members have referred is Guy's and Lewisham, so the cuts affect Lewisham hospital in my constituency. I have had no notice of the cuts and I have not been consulted. I wish to add to the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) for a statement in the House so that we may question Ministers.
In Lewisham, we face the closure of Sydenham children's hospital and the moving of its facilities to our site. Will that be placed in jeopardy? Will phase 2 of our hospital be placed in jeopardy? We cannot tell, but we are told that the cuts are across the board. A 10 per cent. cut in staff at Lewisham hospital would be extremely deleterious to our health services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham said, Ministers must be made responsible for the action. I beg you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to use your good offices to ensure that Ministers come to the House either today or another day to answer for what will be, I am sure, a severe reduction in the health services available to my constituents.

Mr. John Townend: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking on the same point of order?

Mr. Townend: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Please speak very briefly because we are cutting into private Members' time.

Mr. Townend: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These things happen all the time. One should not always accept the idea that because staff are cut, services will be cut. One might consider the catering side of hospitals—

Ms. Ruddock: This is not a point of order.

Mr. Townend: It is a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the matter now. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order for me, I will hear it.

Mr. Townend: It is quite unreasonable for the Opposition to demand on a Friday that a Minister should come to the House. There is no urgency in the matter. A Minister could easily make a statement next week. There is no urgency for a statement to be made before the weekend. Ministers are supposed to be running the country, so it would be inconvenient for them to come to the House today. The demand is unnecessary.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I speak as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I recall that the trusts were established by delegated powers. As far as I can recall, there were no provisions in that delegated legislation for the removal of parliamentary accountability and the responsibility of Ministers to make statements to the House when there were such enormous, cataclysmic and catastrophic announcements of 600 redundancies at a given hospital. I thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if you were making inquiries on behalf of the House, which is


anxious to have a statement from the Government, it should be borne in mind that Ministers still have responsibility for the catastrophe.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been no request for a statement on the matter, but no doubt what has been said will have been heard by members of the Government Front Bench. The hon. Members concerned will be able to seek other opportunities to raise the matter.

Orders of the Day — Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill

Mr. Holt: I drove past Guy's hospital this morning and I was amazed by the amount of capital building work that is going on there. Having seen that and then having listened to remarks about 600 job cuts did not make sense to me. However, I should be told off by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I digressed for one minute from the Bill.
I have already congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and I was making the point that the Bill was really Government legislation. As such, coming on a Friday, it interferes with genuine private Members' time. The Bill will not be subjected, as was the Bill concerning the Tees and Hartlepool port authority which I sponsored, to being thrown out on the capricious whim of a few Members of the other place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington drew attention to his constituency in relation to the transportation of atomic waste. I represent Teesside, where the chemical industry is at the heart of what we do. We have tremendous problems. We have the largest fire service in the country. Recently we have been involved in detailed and long talks over the marking of all the vehicles that come into Teesside from all round the world. In Cleveland, we used the British marking while everyone else used the European standard marking. The Government urged us to go over to the European model. We tried to convince the Minister that the signs used in this country, and widely accepted in this and some other countries, were better than European signs and that argument raged over the transportation of chemicals. Will we have the same arguments over the movement of atomic waste, raw materials, isotopes and so on? If so, we could find ourselves in an expensive bargaining game.
It is all very well to have before us this type of Bill, either privately or supported by the Government, but I wonder how long it will be before the European legislature decides to impose its own rules, regulations and markings and whether we shall have to change all over again. In those circumstances, it might have been wise to leave the matter until the Europeans have determined the issue, in the same context as the movement of chemical and hazardous materials in the Teesside area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington referred to people's perceptions and feelings about atomic waste and atomic power stations. On Teesside we have Hartlepool power station, which is producing electricity cheaply for distribution on the national grid. It is an excellent power station. I recall not long ago the people responsible for the welfare and well-being of the toughest youngsters in the Durham area—those who in old-fashioned terms would have been called borstal boys—taking a group on a visit to Hartlepool atomic power station.
The tough lads and lassies were ushered into a bus in Durham and transported a few miles to Hartlepool. It was found, on arriving at the power station, that the youngsters would not leave the bus. Although only a few brick walls lay between the bus and the power station, they did not want to go in. It was as though they were near Chernobyl. Although they were told that they were at no risk, their perception was such—the same applies to many members of the public—they did not like the idea of being at the power station.
Such is the aura surrounding atomic energy and we must remove that fear. One way to do that is through the type of measure that is before the House today. We must constantly examine and update legislation. Much has happened between 1947 and 1991. If we do not re-educate the public in this matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said, we shall fall behind our European competitors, particularly France, in the provision of cheap electricity.
The British furniture industry, for which I speak in the House, recently had new legislation imposed on it for fire prevention which involved the use of new types of foam in upholstered furniture. The result is that, at great expense, all furniture manufacturers in Britain have installed new equipment and employed new production methods. We are now producing furniture which is safer than furniture produced anywhere else on the continent.
Yet the European Parliament is about to introduce new regulations affecting furniture manufacturing. That will involve foam, chemicals and all other matters used in that industry, but the new European regulations will not be as strict as those that now exist in Britain. That puts the Minister in a dichotomy; does he uphold our stronger laws or accede to instructions from Brussels?
If, having passed this Bill, the same happens over the movement of atomic waste, we shall find ourselves in a legislative maelstrom. Indeed, we might as well have stayed, legislatively, where we were in 1947. Have the changes that we have made over the years given us the best that we could have? Even at this stage of the Bill, I question whether my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, acting on behalf of the Government, or even the Government themselves, have thought through the whole question of the marking of vehicles.
It is important to know what consideration the Government have given to controls that may be imposed on the drivers of the vehicles involved. For example, will there be an age limit and will drivers need medical examinations, including regular eye tests? It is all very well to say that a vehicle must have an MOT test every few years to ensure that its tyres, gears and so on are in good working order and that it has all the necessary equipment. But what about the human beings who drive the vehicles?
Our experience on Teesside, which involves the movement of many chemical lorries, is that invariably accidents occur not through mechanical failure but through human error. Sometimes the roads are slippery, but all too often accidents occur through human error such as tiredness or lack of concentration, or because drivers have been listening to the radio or thinking about last night's football match or episode of "Eastenders". As a result of the multitude of matters that go through people's minds, accidents occur.
When there is a chemical accident on Teesside, there is a major alert and all the emergency services immediately go into action. I fear that hellish travel and traffic problems also occur. Indeed, in a recent accident on the main roundabout on the A19, traffic was held up for many hours. That involved the spillage of only a small amount of toxic material, but we cannot afford to take chances with the movement of toxic, dangerous and nuclear material.
We have a debt to the general public. That has led my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington to introduce the Bill, although hon. Members will agree that we were not over-convinced by the Minister's contribution. Could we

have been convinced by Government explanation, apology and enlightenment involving only one and a half minutes of explanation from the Minister?

Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend feel that a covert deal has been done by the Minister? He did not give a proper reply to the debate or answer the questions that were put to him. Could that be because he is anxious to get on to the next debate, the Government having decided to back the Bill which will cause many problems for my pig farmers? I have been accused by the Opposition of manoeuvring. Does my hon. Friend think that this is a case of parliamentary manoeuvring?

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend tempts me to discuss that issue, but would he expect me to ascribe such motives to the Minister? Heaven forbid that a Minister would do anything that could be called gerrymandering—

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman mean filibustering rather than gerrymandering?

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which shows that he is more familiar than I am with the use of such words.

Mr. John Townend: My hon. Friend represents a constituency which contains many chemical works. Has he had problems on the roads over the transportation of hazardous loads and are his constituents as worried as mine about such matters and do they require reassurance? Is it likely that loads of nuclear waste will be transported through his constituency?

Mr. Holt: That reminds me that I should put on record the fact that I am a director of a chemical company with production units on the river in Teesside. Therefore, I have much first-hand knowledge of the chemical industry and know what we must consider by way of environmental practices. Without a shadow of a doubt, my company's No. 1 priority is safety and I believe that to be true of ICI and all the other major chemical companies in Teesside. On my visits to various chemical companies, I have always made a point of meeting the transport manager and seeing the safety experts because there is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said, a widespread fear and concern that we are dealing with material that is liable to be volatile at any time. There is also a power station in the constituency.

Sir Richard Body: Will my hon. Friend give hon. Members some guidance on what they should do in the forthcoming Division for which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has said he will call and for which Tellers will be provided? Will my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) vote against the Bill? Does he feel that the Bill goes far enough? Will he give us guidance on which way we should vote because, in view of what he said earlier, it seems that some of us should be persuaded to vote against the Bill when my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington presses it to a Division?

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will have to be patient. When one learns how this place works, one often finds that as more and more legislation progresses, hon. Members take more interest. There is so much legislation that they cannot always be fully aware of and involved in every detail.

Mr. Ron Davies: If the hon. Gentleman does not know the difference between gerrymandering and filibustering, he should be reticent about giving advice on matters procedural to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body).

Mr. Holt: I did not give my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) any advice. I took on board the point of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), that it would have been presumptious for me to give advice to my hon. Friend who, I know, is interested in this debate. However, I do not think that my hon. Friend has too many power stations using atomic energy or many chemical works in his constituency. But I am grateful to him for being here.

Sir Richard Body: The railway system in my constituency is being used for the transportation of these dangerous materials, which has caused great anxiety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington is against the Bill and proposes to press for a Division. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaugh support my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington in his opposition to the Bill?

Mr. Holt: I repeat that my hon. Friend must be patient. We shall all find out what I am going to do at the end of the debate, when I shall say which way I shall lead the House on Third Reading.

Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been some presumptuousness in the House today? My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) will have to wait and see what happens at the end of the debate and see how I vote.

Mr. Holt: We shall all have to wait and see how we vote. The important thing is to see how many people vote. We shall have to see whether the Government, as this is their Bill, have managed to persuade the payroll to materialise out of the woodwork and present themselves in the Lobby on a Friday, or whether this is genuinely a one-line Whip day, when the wishes of Back-Benchers prevail, not the Executive.
I have a sneaking feeling, because I have not been contradicted in the suggestions that I have made three or four times, that this is Government legislation. As it is Government legislation, I feel reasonably confident that the Government will have done something in the background to bring in hon. Members. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston would like to ask all of them how they are going to vote, how they made up their minds how they were going to vote and which salient points of the debate they took on board? Perhaps they were influenced by a telephone call from the Whip telling them to be here and support the Government legislation on Friday morning. I doubt whether those people have listened to the arguments in the debate or made up their own minds. I freely admit that that is my practice on most Fridays when I vote. That is the way in which the vast majority of hon. Members make up their minds on many pieces of legislation on which they vote day in, day out, vote in, vote out because that is how this place operates. I shall tell my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston which way I shall vote later.
It is worth noting that, while people come out of the woodwork to speak on points of order on a London hospital, there are no Liberals or Labour Members

present, except one Labour shadow spokesman, for this debate, which is about the movement of atomic material. When people come to my glorious constituency and drive along the road to Teeside they come across a sign saying "Nuclear Free Zone" put up by Labour-controlled Cleveland county council. That means that the nuclear power station at Hartlepool must be a figment of our imagination.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the Bill. We are on Third Reading and the debate should be restricted to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Holt: I am talking about the tranportation by road of nuclear waste material. It will be transported by a lorry that has been tested, has proper tyres and has undergone an oil change. That lorry will be driven up the A19 and could be involved in an accident. When the driver comes across the "Nuclear Free Zone" sign will the lorry shudder to a stop as he puts on the brakes? Does the Bill tell the lorry driver what to do when he comes to that sign on his way to or from Hartlepool power station to take nuclear material in or out? The Bill does not. It states that the lorry must be in good order and the packaging must be right, but it does not say anything about the man or woman driving the vehicle—but it is a piece of Government legislation.
Having enjoyed being a nuclear-free zone for so long under the loonies, the London borough of Brent has now done away with the nuclear-free zone signs. The last of the signs was recently installed in the civil museum in Brent to mark the passing of the loony left and the signs in that borough. Unfortunately, Cleveland is still controlled by the loony left Labour local authority, which has a right to determine the movement of nuclear material by road and train.
My hon. Friend mentioned that trains, possibly with nuclear material on board, pass through his constituency. I wonder who knows which trains have nuclear material on board. Are there special signs? It appears that, in the Bill, the Government have omitted to mention anything relating to trains.

Mr. John Townend: My hon. Friend must have misheard me. I did not mention trains passing through my constituency. I was worried about the transportation by road of such waste in my constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill clearly deals with transport by road and it would be out of order to refer to any other form of transport.

Mr. Holt: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was drawn along that path by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland and Boston. I was seeking only to answer his point about trains carrying radioactive material passing through his constituency. Perhaps the fact that the Bill relates only to roads is one of its defects. It will be undermined by forthcoming European legislation, which will relate to all the transportation systems for such material. It may not be long before the Government have to return to the House with another Bill. Will that be on a Friday? Will they ask some hon. Member who is lucky enough to have come high in the ballot to adopt it as a private Member's Bill?
I am not really knocking the fact that the Government behave in that way. On occasions, I am glad that


Government Bills go through the private Member's Bill route on a Friday. I was here not many Fridays ago when the House debated another Government-inspired and sponsored Bill to provide for vending machines and television sets in betting shops. That came through the door—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with the Bill. It is my job to protect the business of the House and the hon. Gentleman must keep in order. He must relate his remarks directly to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Holt: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to the whole of the debate and I am simply trying to discuss some points that have already been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South referred to her cottage in the Loire valley and said that the atomic power stations there did not create dust. She was in order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that I stopped the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) at that point.

Mr. Holt: Your memory is better than mine, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you did stop my hon. Friend. That was when I intervened to remind the House of what happened when the Swedish Government changed their policy on the use of atomic power stations.
My hon. Friend for Kensington moved the Third Reading with alacrity and smoothness, but nowhere near that shown by my hon. Friend the Minister. The manner in which he responded and the fact that he added nothing to the reasons why the Bill is being dealt with in this way made me think that perhaps he had a heavy pressing engagement outside the House. Hon. Members who participate in debates on a Friday—including my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston—want to know why people vote in a particular way. Because my hon. Friend the Minister has left, he cannot intervene in my speech and answer some of my legitimate questions. What about other forms of transportation for atomic and dangerous materials? Will sufficient roads be built? Will roads be identified as priority routes on which the hazardous material must be transported? Will certain roads be banned for the transportation of such material? Can only specific vehicles be used to carry such material, or will any vehicle be permitted provided that the packaging, as set out in the Bill, is correct?
Was not it discouraging to see on our television sets during the past few days that those who transport atomic warheads have been highly criticised by an independent body—not the Opposition; a body far more learned and thorough? That had Government support, as the Bill has Government support. I have a responsibility to my constituents to be absolutely sure, before I vote on proposed legislation, that it is in their best interests. I am not convinced that the Bill is in their best interests, especially in view of the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister. Of course, if I were to be polite, I would refer to his lack of speech. He did not answer any of the points made. He has gone and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—who is waiting for the next debate—is holding the seat on the Treasury Bench. I doubt whether an Agriculture Minister would wish to intervene in a road transport debate.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): My hon. Friend is being uncharacteristically unfair. I urged my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic to leave so that he could fulfil his important engagements. Before he did so, he gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) —who has also left to fulfil engagements—that he would write to her on any detailed points. This is a Third Reading debate and I feel that my hon. Friend's speech was more than adequate, especially as the Bill was exhaustively discussed during earlier stages.
My hon. Friend the Minister would be pleased to write to my hon. Friend for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) on any technical or detailed points. I confirm that my hon. Friend the Minister concluded his speech by saying that the Government support the Bill.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but the fact is that the Minister responsible has left. That underlines my earlier point that Government legislation on a Friday is wrong, especially if Ministers have previous engagements that take them away in the middle of the debate when hon. Members are making their points. I do not make a slur on my hon. Friend; perhaps it is a problem with the way in which the Government organise the business of the House. I am not being personally critical; I am criticising the way in which the system works. I accept the assurance that my points about the roads in my constituency will receive a written reply. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is a most courteous and diligent man, but that does not detract from my argument that Ministers should be in the Chamber to reply, not just to hold the seat.
I return to the question of my constituency—its roads, the road patterns and the vehicles that will be carrying the hazardous material. We will not always know what the vehicles are carrying. We do not know what the markings regulations will be. Langbaurgh has been waiting since 1938 for bypass for the market town of Guisborough. If vehicles carrying hazardous waste have to go through Guisborough, until the bypass is built, my constituents will be worried. The vehicles will have to pass through a busy market town with markets on both sides of an old cobbled street, with a steep, sharp bend at one end. We have been waiting for the bypass and perhaps we should have one before such materials are allowed to travel through Cleveland in road vehicles, however well protected the materials and however young, fit and able are the drivers, or however good their eyesight.
If the Minister were here, I would have mentioned to him the fact that Guisborough almost has a bypass. A few months ago a new stretch of dual carriageway spur road came along, stretching from one part of my constituency to the outskirts of Guisborough. A lovely roundabout was built and 20 ft of brand new roadway leads off it. One day that will be a bypass.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman once more that we are talking about the transport by road of radioactive materials. We are not talking about road works.

Mr. Holt: They cannot be transported by road if we have not got the roads, and I am trying to argue that case.


To transport such materials through my constituency, as provided for in the Bill, roads need to be built and that bypass needs to be built.
Perhaps that subject is on the fringe of being out of order, but it is a road—or to be precise it is not a road, because it has not been built yet, as is the case with the Brotton bypass, which we should have but which we do not have—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought for one moment that the hon. Gentleman was about to be very helpful. He virtually admitted that he was out of order. I ask for his co-operation to ensure that his remarks are in order.

Mr. Holt: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was skirting close to the edge of the road and I am carrying no hazard warning signs; if I were, they would be out of order as far as the European Commission is concerned.
This is a serious matter and perhaps I have treated it with a little levity. However, it is important that, when Parliament is asked to pass legislation, it is given all the information that it requires. I am not sure that we should be proud to say that in Committee we got rid of the Bill in six minutes or 12 minutes, or whatever the figure was, or that it had a thorough, detailed investigation there.
On Third Reading we are not necessarily able to go into all the ramifications, but can only say whether we approve or disapprove and vote for or against the Bill. However, it remains incumbent upon us to probe and to look for answers from Ministers.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, the promoter of the Bill, were a member of the Government it would be different. I wish him well and I hope that he soon is, as his talents lie in that direction. However, at the moment he is not in a position to answer for the Government.

Sir Richard Body: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his stamina, because he has succeeded in killing off the subsequent legislation for this afternoon, which is quite an achievement, given the paucity of matter for debate in the Bill. Is he aware that during his speech he has driven out of the Chamber everyone who came to the House concerned with the Bill other than its promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn)? That is a remarkable achievement for which he deserves to be doubly congratulated, because there is no one on either Front Bench who is concerned with the Bill—they have all gone. Everyone else has gone, because they are satisfied with the Bill. True my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) is here. We are fascinated to discover whether he will support the Bill. He has said that he will call a Division, no doubt because he is against it, although everyone else seems to be in favour.
Given all those facts, does not my hon. Friend consider that, having succeeded in killing off the subsequent legislation, we might now be spared too much detail about the necessary road works in his constituency and about some of the other matters that we have been hearing about for some time? Now that he has achieved his objective, could he not sum up his essential arguments as to why he objects to the Third Reading of this Bill?

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has given me one or two thoughts that had not occurred to

me. That enables me to remind my hon. Friend that I have not driven anyone anywhere. My hon. Friend is still here. The hon. Member for Bridlington is still here; I have not driven him away.

Miss Kate Hoey: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) to go on for 45 minutes, talking like a five-year-old schoolboy, and for him deliberately to obstruct a Bill that many hon. Members have stayed here this morning to see brought into legislative effect—an animal welfare measure that many people in this country want? Is he not ashamed of himself? Would you order him to bring his remarks to a close?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As long as the hon. Gentleman is in order, he is entitled to address the House, but he is having quite a job keeping in order.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to answer some of the questions asked during this debate, questions which were obviously in order because they were not ruled out of order.
May I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Holland upon Boston that he need not worry about my stamina because I was here for the entire 14 hours during which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), myself and one or two other hon. Members managed to talk, quite conclusively and within the rules of the House, about putting fluoride in water. I believe that that was the longest speech on record by any hon. Member and that it is recorded in the "Guinness Book of Records". I was here for the entire 14-hour debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that because I had forgotten about it.
Allowing for interventions and points of order, and for giving way so generously on so many occasions, I do not think that I have spoken for long. If I have changed the direction of Parliament or have moved legislation in one way or another in such a short time, it is quite an achievement. Perhaps if I keep going for a little longer on the Bill, legislation may well be the better for it.
However, I do not want to travel along those roads, even on a road Bill, if it causes you to bring me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to tell me that I am stretching the patience of the Chair and of the House. If you tell me that something is out of order, I respect that and come back to the subject as quickly as I can. I am a little tangential from time to time because my hon. Friend—but I see that he has gone. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston says things that tempt me on to subjects for which I do not even have a note. I had not anticipated that. Sometimes I have to reflect for a moment about interjections. Earlier my hon. Friend the Minister made a helpful interjection.
I am concerned that there are fears for animal welfare. I did not know that there were any atomic animals as yet. Many people have views on the transportation of atomic materials and many people have expressed strong views in the past about anything to do with radioactive waste.
Sometimes it is when a seemingly short, two-paragraph Bill is before us that important legislation is passed. It is incumbent on hon. Members with constituencies close to a power station where hazardous materials and toxic waste may be transported on the roads continually, day in and day out, night after night, seven days a week to consider the Bill. I wonder whether there is any reference in the Bill


or whether the Government have given consideration to the possible hazardous mix between chemical and atomic materials. Will anyone ensure that a vehicle carrying a heavy load of toxic waste is not travelling at the same time as a vehicle carrying atomic waste from the power station? If they were nowhere near each other, there would be no danger whatsoever, but who will co-ordinate the transport? To the best of my knowledge, no one will do that.
The Government have not thought about co-ordinating traffic movements. They seem to be living in never-never land. They believe that once one has written "fragile" on a label, the parcel will never be thrown around. If that is the case, the Government can never have used the Royal Mail. The same applies to lorries. They may carry markings, but will people always respect them? They will not. That is not the way that people drive vehicles.
Why is not hazardous material given a police escort when it is transported? If it is so dangerous, why does the Bill not provide for it to have a police escort while it is being transported along our streets through the quiet of the night and at all other times? Legislation provides that a vehicle carrying a long steel girder or an old boat must have a police outrider, back and front. There is even legislation which provides that if one wants to carry a ladder over the end of a lorry a bit of rag must be tied round the end of it. Provided, however, the lorry is all right and the packaging is all right, nuclear material can be transported, and all is well.
I wonder whether the chief constable of Cleveland will ever be informed, or his traffic superintendent? I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston will be informed when nuclear material is transported on trains going through Lincolnshire? I wonder whether anyone will be aware that hazardous material is being transported? We hear that there are 300,000 such journeys each year. Boy, that is going to tie up a bit of police time! How many inspectors will there have to be to ensure that anyone who is concerned with the transport of this dangerous material has got it right?
I have asked a large number of questions relevant to the Bill and I have done so legitimately. I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington can answer them. He is not a Government Minister and this is a Government Bill. Now I see that there is a Government Whip on the Treasury Bench. It must have been thought that this legislation would go through on the nod, that no one would be particularly interested in the movement of atomic waste. They must have thought that a little Bill of this nature, a private Member's Bill, would slip through. Well, slip through it might; but if it means that in future it will provide a legitimate excuse for those who might have an accident to say that they had done everything within the law, as laid down by Parliament, and that they did not have to inform the police, or to ensure that there were regular checks of the vehicle or regular driving tests for the drivers, it is perhaps just as well that a Back Bencher like me should have got up, kicked the Government in the backside and told them that they ought to have done their job properly. I do not believe that they have done their job properly.
I believe that the Government have misled my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. He is an honest, decent guy. He introduced the Bill thinking that the Government were behind him, as I did when I introduced the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. I honestly,

genuinely and sincerely thought that the Government would support me. As I had the Prime Minister voting for the Bill in the Division Lobby, I felt secure in the knowledge that that Bill would reach the statute book. It did not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has now strayed into discussing another Bill. He must talk about this one.

Mr. Holt: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one tries to compare Bills to show that all Bills are not the same, that they are different and that consequently they should be treated differently. I am just trying to point out to my hon. Friend that the Bill that we are considering seems to have the same pedigree as mine and that its fate is likely to be the same as mine, but for different reasons. My Bill was not inadequate. There was no reason why it should not have been passed. The House of Commons wanted it to go through and voted for it, just as it voted for my hon. Friend's Bill. No hon. Member put forward legitimate arguments against the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. It was left to a House of Lords Committee to sink it, without right of appeal. Its failure was more peremptory than what happened under Stalin in Russia.
There have been occasions when I have wanted to speak but have been unable to do so. Today I did not really want to speak, but I was persuaded to do so.

Mr. Terry Lewis: We know why: the hon. Gentleman will be named.

Mr. Holt: I know that some hon. Members have just arrived; perhaps they could not get up this morning. Having arrived, perhaps they would have the courtesy to keep quiet while another hon. Member is on his feet. If, however, the hon. Gentleman wants me to give way, I shall happily give way to him if he has anything to contribute to the debate on the transportation of nuclear hazardous waste. One of the hallmarks of the debate has been the lack of contribution, interest and knowledge on the part of the Opposition. To try to be rude during an hon. Member's speech does not add to the quality of the debate, but it highlights the deficiencies in the thinking of the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis). I do not believe that that enhances Parliament's role one little bit. Up to now we have enjoyed a reasonably good debate. The hon. Gentleman who has just come in has not heard the debate and does not know what it is all about, yet he feels that he can make a contribution to it.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what I am talking about is the next debate on the Pig Husbandry Bill. We know what he is up to. I repeat what I said from a sedentary position—that he will be named.

Mr. Holt: If the hon. Gentleman had been here even for one minute before he made his intervention and had listened to any of the debate, he would have found it difficult to sustain his criticism. No one else has sought to criticise my contribution. I have been asked to explain a few points and I have given way on a number of occasions. I did so because we on this side of the House normally act with a degree of courtesy and decency. We do not behave in the way that so-called Front-Bench spokesmen for the Opposition do.
When I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I did not hear one word about this Bill. Perhaps I ought not to have given


way, but then you might have taken me to task, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not giving way. However, the hon. Gentleman only wanted to talk about another Bill that is to follow this one. I am not aware of what he wants to talk about. If he wants to enlighten the House about his thinking, I am prepared to give way and allow him to tell us what it is about the road transportation of atomic waste and other atomic materials that is so vital and that has been missed out of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, or my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South. But now all that we are getting is a turning of the back and a chat with someone in the second row. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is getting instructions about what he ought to have said when he intervened a few moments ago.
It is not quite an hour since I rose to my feet, so I think that some hon. Members who are worried that the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill may not see the light of day must have missed what I said earlier about my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton having spoken for 14 hours on a previous Bill. To be fair to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, he covered the entire Bench with notes to make sure that he did not forget anything, and indeed he had many strong arguments. After only one hour, I may well be concluding my speech.

Mrs. Currie: I hope that my hon. Friend will not make a mistake about what happened. I was present when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made his speech. It was four hours, and not 14 hours, although it certainly felt like 14 hours. The main problem was that my hon. and learned Friend started speaking at about 4 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Holt: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I think that she will find that that speech lasted about 12 hours. I may have been exaggerating a little when I said that it was 14 hours. It did not start at 4 o'clock in the morning; it finished at 4 o'clock in the morning, having started at about 3.30 on the previous afternoon. I was in my usual place on that occasion, so I was sitting on the end of the Bench where my hon. and learned Friend had put his notes. I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South was sitting on the other side of the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These reminiscences are very interesting. I realise that the hon. Gentleman was led astray by the hon. Lady, but I am sure that he will now direct his speech to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Holt: Would I allow my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South to lead me astray?

Mrs. Currie: Yes.

Mr. Holt: Of course I would, given half a chance. I hope that Hansard has not written down too much of that, or we shall both be in trouble when we go home!
I had intended to speak for only a few moments, but an hour is not very long to draw attention to important matters affecting the roads in my constituency and the lorries travelling along them. However, I have had to give way to unnecessary points of order from Opposition Members. Points of order are usually the only

contributions we hear from Liberal Members, who have been completely absent today. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) wonders how I will vote on the Bill. I wonder how the Liberals will vote on it. They certainly have not made their position clear, but that does not surprise anyone.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I do not want to encourage my hon. Friend to continue because I am in favour of getting the Pig Husbandry Bill before the House because it is such an important measure. I accept his acknowledgement and I hope that he will do all he can to allow that Bill to come before the House.

Mr. Holt: I am not quite sure why my hon. Friend wants to steer me in that direction. My hon. Friend knows that my knowledge of Ealing is quite extensive, but I am not too sure whether there are any pig farms there. I wonder how many pig farmers my hon. Friend is representing today. If there are any in Ealing, perhaps he will let me know, because to the best of my knowledge there are none. My hon. Friend knows that I was born in the neighbouring constituency—

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that this is a Third Reading debate? While we recognise that the hon. Gentleman has the absolute right to speak at whatever length he chooses, whatever his motives, surely on Third Reading he has to be precise and his remarks must be addressed to the motion. I do not wish to challenge any of your earlier rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you have drawn the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he has strayed wide of the mark. May I put it to you that, as this is a Third Reading debate, you have a responsibility to instruct the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a close?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would be reluctant to do that at this stage, but I hope that when hon. Members make interventions they ensure that they are directly relevant. The hon. Gentleman who has the floor is finding it difficult to keep in order. If interventions tempt him out of order, it makes it that much more difficult for the Chair to protect the later business of the House.

Mr. Holt: I am not quite sure why the hon. Member for Caerphilly keeps interrupting while I am trying to wind up my speech. Every time I try to bring it to a conclusion somebody interrupts me.
As I am getting a little dry, I wonder whether I could pause for a drop of water. Hon. Members will know that I have permission to stop for a drink of water because of my medical condition.
On my way here I happened to be listening to the radio and I heard a gentleman talking about the society for plain English which is trying to get rid of gobbledegook. The Bill contains words and phrases which would lead the society for plain English to wonder what it meant. It refers to "70 kilobecquerels per kilogram". I thought that we were still the United Kingdon and I had not realised that we had become European to that extent. I do not remember when Parliament passed legislation saying that those who draft legislation were to do it in such a way that no one understood it, unless they were French.
I hope that in the absence of a Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington will tell those of us who are still English and who remember learning English weights and measures at school what "70 kilobecquerels per


kilogram" means. Perhaps he can tell us how that information gets through to those who employ the lorry drivers and whether the lorry drivers will know whether they are within the law when they pick up their time sheets in the morning and go to the yard to collect their vehicles. Will they say, "Hang about, what does 70 kilobecquerels per kilogram mean?" How will they measure that? I do not think the Government have thought that through. I do not think that my hon. Friend has thought it through, and nor did he expect me to ask that question. Before we give the Bill a Third Reading, can somebody tell me in plain English what is meant by "70 kilobecquerels per kilogram"? That is in the legislation we are being asked to pass and we are still the United Kingdom Parliament.
The Bill goes on to refer to "such lesser specific activity". I hope that the lorry drivers know what that is. I expect that they would probably be more inclined to want greater specific activity.
Who will pay and train all the examiners who will be examining the vehicles? Where is the money resolution for the money that Parliament will have to vote so that those people can be trained to carry out the examinations that will be necessary? I hope that my hon. Friend has an answer to that.

Mr. Fishburn: The money resolution has already been passed.

Mr. Holt: So the money resolution was passed before anyone knew how much it would cost. If local government tried to get away with that, Ministers and shadow Ministers would be leaping around screaming, but it appears that the Government can behave in that way without anyone getting upset.
One aspect of the Bill gives me cause for concern in my capacity as a member of the Select Committee on the Environment. The Bill refers to devices for cooling. One might have thought that the Bill would specify whether CFC coolants are to be used—or, indeed, contain an instruction that they should not be used. We now know that the release of CFCs into the atmosphere is the major cause of the ozone problem and global warming. To the best of my knowledge, however, we have not yet been able to find a commercially viable alternative to CFCs for use as coolants in vehicles and elsewhere.

Mr. Don Dixon: This is disgraceful.

Mr. Holt: Does the shadow deputy Chief Whip wish to intervene? I am more than willing to give way.

Mr. Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's speech is an abuse. He is not making a Third Reading speech and he should have been brought to order on numerous occasions. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed him to digress in response to interventions from hon. Members who wish to talk out the next Bill. I ask you now to bring the hon. Gentleman to order and to tell him to make a Third Reading speech, as he should have been doing for some considerable time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave that matter to the Chair.

Mr. Holt: I do not impugn Opposition Member's motives, and it is wrong that they should seek to impugn the motives of Conservative Members. I have always found that bullies like things when they are going their way, but are always the first to complain when things do

not go their way. Fortunately, I do not have much to do with bullies. Bullies do not frighten me—so do not try it here—and I know that bullies will not frighten you either, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I stray out of order, you will give me that little haul on the reins—as you have already done several times—and I shall immediately return to order. I have been told that I am not making a Third Reading speech, but I have been asking legitimate questions and talking exclusively to the Bill. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, feel that the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has any meaning, so be it. We have known for a long time that members of the Labour party do not like honest decent debate, and on this occasion they have shown their hand even more than usual.
Before that rather rude interruption, I was talking about devices for cooling and CFCs. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington may or may not go through, and I sought to draw to his attention the fact that it is not good enough merely to refer to coolants. One must define what they are, especially as we are discussing the safe transportation of hazardous materials. That makes it incumbent on us to include a definition. New kinds of coolants may be used in future. The Bill seeks to put right the errors, wrongs and sins of legislation introduced in 1947. In 10 or 20 years the generic title "coolants" may include substances that may have a chemical input and may act as a catalyst in the event of a horrendous accident. We never know what accidents will entail until they happen. Almost all accidents are about people not being able to prepare themselves in time. If we glibly include the word "coolants" without defining it, in 10 or 20 years my successor—not the successor of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, because my hon. Friend is still a young man—will say, "Why did they do that when they had the opportunity of the Third Reading debate to discuss it? Why did they include the generic term 'coolants' without specifying chemical values?" I should have welcomed an explanation from the Minister of why the Government favoured the inclusion of those words. I am not sure whether the Government would know entirely what they meant by "thermal insulation" either.
I have suggested that there are weaknesses, defects and problems relating to the Bill, even though it is a short Bill. Perhaps Opposition Members are so much in favour of atomic energy and the atomic industry that they want the Bill to go through without anyone debating it. I am sure that Labour activists throughout the country will ask why it was left to a Conservative to raise issues concerning nuclear power and public safety questions arising from the use and transportation of nuclear materials? Where are all those with CND badges? Where are all those who have opposed everything that has been done in respect of nuclear power for the past 50 years? Clearly they lack the staying power to come to the House on a Friday or the intellecutal power to understand the Bill. [Laughter.] Did I say something funny? Certainly there is a great lack.
I am pleased about one thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston said that my speech had driven everyone out of the Chamber. That has proved to be false. There are four times as many hon. Members present now as were present when I rose to my feet a few moments ago. If I keep going for a few more hours—as I have suggested I just might—perhaps even more hon. Members will return to hear this debate on the important subject of radioactive materials.

Sir Richard Body: I merely drew attention to the fact that, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), who introduced the Bill, all those concerned with it had left the Chamber. That is a remarkable achievement—especially as both Front-Bench spokesmen walked out. I do not think that that has ever happened before. It has certainly not happened in the 30 years that I have spent in the House. It is a remarkable achievement, and I congratulate my hon. Friend.

Mr. Holt: I had never expected such plaudits. In any case, it is not true. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) had walked out before I rose to speak. Only my hon. Friend the Minister, having heard a few words of my argument, realised that it was better to be somewhere else. Perhaps I should plead guilty in that respect. In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, with his 30 years' standing, I would only say that I bet that some hon. Members who have left will wish that they had not. I bet that by the time that the matter has been analysed, some people will wish that they had not been here at all. They may well have come here today anticipating that we would reach the Young Persons (Alcohol Abuse) Etc. Bill, which is item 6 on the Order Paper. That was the Bill in which I was really interested. I expected that the sponsors of that Bill would be present. However, I do not think that we will reach item 6.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I am a latecomer to the debate. Not only do I have an interest in the Pig Husbandry Bill, on which I hope to speak as several amendments have been tabled by me and other hon. Members, but I have a keen interest in the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill. Throughout my time in the House of Commons I have been approached by constituents who were fearful about safety issues. They had good reason.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate again the Pig Husbandry Bill. It has been raised many times already this morning. On that subject, we are moving rapidly towards tedious repetition.

Mr. Holt: I hope that you do not accuse me of tedious repetition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not the first to refer to the Pig Husbandry Bill; it was the hon. Member for Jarrow. The second person was my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, the third was my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and the fourth was my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). Indeed, Hansard will show that, far from being repetitious on the Pig Husbandry Bill, I have made little reference to it. I may have strayed gently on one occasion in response to promptings from the Opposition Front Bench. But I do not want to upset you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by talking about the Pig Husbandry Bill.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West, let me point out that I have a great deal to say on the Pig Husbandry Bill, which may exercise the House for a little longer than I am likely to exercise the House on the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill.
I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has arrived in the

Chamber. We are discussing a Bill which affects Northern Ireland. That is unusual. We do not normally have legislation in one tranche.

Mr. Christopher Gill: My hon. Friend refers to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). Does my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) agree that it is exceptionally good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster in the Chamber today because Northern Ireland is specifically excluded from the Pig Husbandry Bill? He is having to wait a very long time to express his views on that important Bill.

Mr. Holt: I had not realised that the Pig Husbandry Bill did not apply to Northern Ireland. That highlights the nonsenses of the way in which we legislate in this establishment. A Bill about the transport of radioactive materal by road includes Northern Ireland, so that we do not need a separate piece of legislation, but the Pig Husbandry Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. We shall need two or three pieces of legislation to cover the whole of the United Kingdom. How will the poor people of Northern Ireland suffer as a consequence of the House failing to do its duty? However, I shall not be tempted to go into that matter, despite my hon. Friend's intervention. It would be wrong of me to do so and I want to stick to the Bill before the House.
I notice that the Bill provides in clause 5(2):
If a justice of the peace, on sworn information in writing or, in Scotland, on evidence of oath".
Scotland is mentioned in the Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friends wonder why the Bill mentions Scotland only on page 5 in clause 5(2). Why does it not mention Northern Ireland specifically? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington wants his legislaiton to be fair to the United Kingdom as a whole. Why does not the Bill simply say, "a justice of the peace" or "a justice of the peace in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales"? Why have the parliamentary draftsmen brought Scotland into the Bill separately?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster for being here and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) for pointing out that the Pig Husbandry Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, who has a great fondness for Scotland, will want to explain why Scotland is mentioned but not Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is just as much an integral part of the United Kingdom as anywhere else, although sometimes legislation may not apply to it.
It worries me that the southern Irish Government have no nuclear waste disposal facilities of their own. They haul any waste which they need to dispose of over the border into Northern Ireland and from there it goes on to the mainland.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As there is no reference to Northern Ireland in the Bill, surely the hon. Gentleman is out of order in mentioning it in this Third Reading debate. I ask you again to insist that the hon. Gentleman bring his remarks to a close. He is clearly out of order, and he has been so for most of the one and a half hours during which he has spoken. I urge you to make sure that he complies with the rules of the House and brings his comments to a close.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will leave the matter to the Chair. I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). I have stopped him on many occasions when he has been out of order. However, when he is discussing what is in the Bill, he is in order and the House must hear him.

Mrs. Currie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Bill applies to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that the Bill mentions Northern Ireland. Therefore, I wonder why it highlights Scotland in clause 5(2). I am sure that the matter is no different in Scotland. I should have thought that it was the same. It seems that the Bill contains unnecessary wording.
It is perhaps not always obvious to members of the Opposition Front Bench that when one is debating it is not always possible to confine one's remarks entirely to the wording of the Bill. One must always draw from outside for comparisons. One could not examine the Bill in full if one did not do so. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your protection against the unwarranted attacks from the Opposition Front Bench. The Opposition seem obsessed with putting the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill on the statute book. I would bet a few pennies to a pound that that is not in line with what the Labour party conference would want them to do. However, Opposition Members are not standing in front of their party conference, and nor will they be doing so for a while. [Interruption.] I am being barracked by my own side. That is the ultimate cruelty and irony.
Clause 6 deals with offences committed by a body corporate and penalties. I am not sure exactly who would carry the can. If the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority or Nirex engaged the services of someone in Northern Ireland to transport nuclear waste and, for whatever reason, the vehicle failed to match up to the specifications, would the chairman be charged? Although I accept that ultimate responsibility lies in that direction, it stretches the point too far to suggest that the body corporate should carry the can for 300,000 movements by road per year. The fat-cat lawyers would get even fatter and cattier. There would be more and more legislation as more and more offences were committed, more and more people were taken to court and more and more defences were introduced. The Bill will be just like all the other legislation that we pass here—sometimes for the good of the people, but always for the good of lawyers. This legislation will be in that mould.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington can tell me whether it is a good idea for the chairman of Nirex to have to go to gaol for two years if somebody breaks this legislation. I wonder whether he has discussed the matter with the chairman and whether the chairman has agreed that it would be a good idea for him to have that responsibility. We all know how capricious juries can be, but it would be strange to find the chairman guilty.
I wonder how this Bill lines up with European legislation on the subject and similar national legislation about the transport of radioactive material by rail and air. Neither of those two measures is before us, so perhaps this legislation is a little premature. Perhaps the Government should have introduced a comprehensive Bill covering all transportation of such materials.
I am convinced that there are flaws in the Bill even now and I have highlighted some of them. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he can give a full, thorough and lengthy response to my points. I want to support him and to be convinced. More important, my constituents want to be convinced that this simple, nine-clause Bill would be good for the country, for Parliament, for the nuclear industry, for the road transport industry and for them.
Other hon. Members must speak for their constituents, but I believe that my constituents will find certain aspects of the Bill incomprehensible, not least "70 kilobecquerels per kilogram". Perhaps they all understand that. They are such jolly nice people. I do not and I am sure that Opposition Front-Bench Members do not, because I have already given them three opportunities to intervene to put me right and tell me where my education went wrong.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend has thought through what the legislation means by "placarding of vehicles". What is the legal definition of "placarding"?

Sir Richard Body: I cannot hear.

Mr. Holt: I was just saying that I wondered whether my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, when he drafted the Bill—it is his Bill, not the Government's Bill, as we all know—looked up the thesaurus to find out the exact meaning of "placarding". I wonder what the legal definition is. Perhaps my hon. Friend, the lawyer at the back here, can tell me how many days in court he will spend and how many hundreds of pounds he will be able to make from defining what "placarding" is.

Mr. John Butterfill: I should point out that I am not a lawyer but a chartered surveyor

Mr. Holt: I realised that my hon. Friend was one of the wealthy fraternity, but I had not realised that he was in that special wealthy category. I apologise if I demeaned him by calling him a lawyer. I apologise to any lawyers who are present, too.
Perhaps, even as a chartered surveyor, my hon. Friend, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Holland and Boston, can tell me when they vote—

Sir Richard Body: I am only a poor pigman. I am not a lawyer.

Mr. Holt: Surely that is a contradiction in terms. I have never met a poor pigman, but I have met a few rich ones. I have met some, however, who were getting poorer and if certain legislation were passed some pigmen would certainly be much poorer.

Mr. Ron Davies: Order.

Mr. Holt: For a moment I thought that I was being called to order, but I realise that the voice came from the Opposition Front Bench.

Sir Richard Body: Is there any evidence of pigmen getting poorer? I have been unable to get any such information from friends and colleagues. Is that true?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman's questions do not relate to the Third Reading.

Mr. Holt: I was having some difficulty understanding where poorness and placarding came together. Presumably my hon. Friend the Member for Holland and Boston, who lives on the outskirts of London, has never


been up to North Yorkshire. If he visited that area and met some of the genuine farmers he might find out about the problems that are liable to be experienced if a certain piece of legislation is passed. It would be out of order, however, to mention that now and my hon. Friend should stop tempting me to do so. If he does, I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will haul me back.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that I have already hauled the hon. Gentleman back to the Third Reading.

Mr. Holt: Yes, I accept that, but I was just saying that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Boston with Holland who was out of order. I was merely trying to correct that by saying that I could not relate what my hon. Friend said about—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the House understands the situation. May we get back to the Third Reading?

Mr. Holt: I realise that you took the Chair a few moments ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if you had been here earlier you would have noted the great difficulties encountered by some Oppositions Members in trying to follow any of the argument. They are truly incapable of reading such a Bill. I have tried to spell out the Bill simply so that the three Labour party Members present will understand.
Before I was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston I was talking about placarding. It is clear that my hon. Friend does not want me to make progress so that we can move on to something else, or he would not keep on interrupting. The same goes for the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
What is the legal definition of placarding in accordance with the Bill? Is it the same as that in the thesaurus? What does it mean? Imagine how my constituents will react when they realise that they must implement the law as it is contained in the Bill. Haulage contractors will say that it is all very well for me to pass the Bill, but that they must tell their drivers what placarding means. Does anyone know? Does it mean that people will be stopped on the outskirts of Teesside on the A19 by a policeman because he is not sure whether those vehicles carry legal placarding?
We are supposed to be talking about the movement of radioactive material, which is a serious subject. I believe that the Government have tried to slip something through the House on this serious matter. The Opposition are incapable of properly opposing anything and they did not think about the Bill. They did not register the Bill and allowed it to go through without delay, as is clear when one considers the length of time the Bill took to complete its Committee stage—12 minutes. The Opposition's scrutiny of legislation of this nature amounted to 12 minutes. I wonder how they will explain that to all the Labour party executive committees up and down the country? As they have nearly all been reselected perhaps the official Opposition will be all right.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Holt: If it is on this issue, I shall do so gladly.

Mr. Davies: It is clear what we would say to any Members of the Labour party who might questions our actions on the Bill. It is a private Member's Bill and it is not the practice of Her Majesty's Opposition to involve themselves, in a party political sense, in such private legislation.

Mr. Holt: I hope that I hear those words again the next time that we introduce a Bill on abortion. I recall that last time things were different when we discussed such a private Member's Bill on a Friday.
The hon. Member who has his hand over his mouth has tried to intervene four or five times. I am not sure whether he is trying to catch my eye or trying—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) were trying to catch the hon. Gentleman's eye, he would rise to show clearly that he wished to intervene.

Mr. Holt: I wish that that was so. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would rise, because he has now sat for some time making noises behind his hand. I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you should ask the Serjeant at Arms to send for the nursing sister.

Mr. Ron Davies: Is is worth putting it on record that the hon. Member involved is the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip. We were discussing the hon. Gentleman's proposition. The hon. Gentleman suggested that, on matters of private legislation, the Labour party took a party line and he used the example of the abortion legislation which the House discussed recently. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the principle that I outlined applied to that legislation as well as to all other legislation. So that the record is clear, my hon. Friend and I went into different Lobbies when we voted on the previous legislation.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Perhaps now that that matter has been cleared up the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) will make progress with his Third Reading speech.

Mr. Holt: I am sensitive to what you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we are talking about radioactive material which can be volatile. The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that the official Opposition did not have a view, but that does not stop individual members of the Opposition holding views. Or do they all have to wait, like sheep and goats, until they are told what to do by their Front-Bench spokesmen? Are they allowed to speak or to intervene only on days when they have been told what to speak on? I thought that at least some members of the Labour party were concerned about radioactive material, its use, its transportation and its dangers and about this legislation. However, their absence today and their lack of contribution in Committee shows that despite the many years of posturing by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Opposition and others, they are not, at the end of the day, especially interested. If they were, they would have been here and would be supporting me in force. It would not have been a short debate of a few hours —it could have continued for days. But the Opposition are not here in force because they are not interested in radioactive material or in the Third Reading.
Until I was interrupted, I was talking about the regulation on placarding of vehicles. I have received no


information fore either my hon. Friend who sponsored the Bill on behalf of the Government or from the stand-in Minister—who is here in place of the Minister who should be here—about what placarding means. If, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said from a sedentary position, it means a cardboard cut-out, I wonder what type of cardboard cut-out—of a policeman, of a co-driver or of a fireman? The legislation does not tell us.
Unfortunately, as you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister had to depart and now I see that the sponsor of the Bill has also had to leave. Who will answer at the end of our short debate? Not only hon. Members, but especially people outside the House want to know what is meant. The Bill refers to
the preparation, labelling, consignment, handling, transport, storage …and …placarding of vehicles.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington has returned. When he makes his winding-up speech, he will no doubt give me a clear explanation about what he meant by "placarding". I want to know why he included the word in the Bill because it seems to be an unnecessary piece of verbiage. I cannot recall any other road transport legislation for radioactive material. Perhaps the word comes from the Radioactive Substances Act 1948 which the Bill seeks to amend. Placarding may have been in vogue in 1948, but today it is no longer so.

Sir Richard Body: Has my hon. Friend picked up a piece of paper containing notes for his speech which he discarded some time ago? I thought that we had already heard about placarding once. Will my hon. Friend pick up another piece of paper and give us a fresh point about the Bill?

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no pieces of paper:, all that I have is the Bill. I have drawn everything from the Bill. If I did not, you Madam Deputy Speaker, would pull me up and say that I was out of order. I have stuck religiously to the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me.

Sir Richard Body: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh will refresh his memory. My memory tells me that we heard all about placarding about 45 minutes ago. Shall we have in the next 45 minutes a repetition of all that we heard in the previous 45 minutes? It was all very good the first time round, but the second time round, it may lose its force.
Judges used to say to young barristers that good points do not need too much repetition. If my hon. Friend's point is good, we can take it in and leave it at that. However, if it is made two or three times, it will not be as effective.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that lesson in debating. My school was probably not quite as grand. At my school, I was told that if one had a point, one should make it, make it and make it, so that people would eventually understand it. If one makes the point only once and then wanders off esoterically into something else—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, our procedures in the House do not allow such repetition. I know that in the course of his speech the hon. Gentleman has repeated himself on a number of occasions. I do not want to call him to order just yet, but I must point out that he is trying the patience

of the House. Unless he can now be more pertinent in this Third Reading debate, I am afraid that I may have to use the powers given to me by the House.

Mr. Holt: That is quite a threat. To some extent, it is a threat to free speech. Unless I strayed way out of order, I should find it difficult to accept a ruling from the Chair which forced me to sit down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The loud-mouthed yobboes and bullies of the Opposition may be trying to bully you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but they certainly will not bully me.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Do not hold your breath on that one.

Mr. Holt: For about an hour, Opposition Members have been trying to coerce, bully and silence me because that is the way in which the Labour party reacts. If Labour Members do not like an argument, and if it is too strong and salient for them—

Mr. Dixon: It is beginning to smell.

Mr. Holt: Labour Members do not seek to out-debate or to use an intellectual argument [Interruption.] They use the yobbo tendency and shout and scream, as they are now. I do not want to go down the yah-boo tendency route of the Labour party. We are not here to do that. We are here to debate the Bill and I was looking forward to a contribution from any Labour Member explaining, among other things, how the Labour party intends to square its view on the Bill with its supporters throughout the country—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that that is not the point in question on the Third Reading. I am sure that he will now oblige me by debating what is in the Bill.

Mr. Holt: It is clear from the Bill that vehicles will travel on roads carrying radioactive material. Those vehicles will go through areas which are claimed to be nuclear-free zones. Those areas have been designated nuclear free by the Labour party. As the Labour Front-Bench spokesman on the subject is not in his place, I had hoped that a Labour Member would explain how the Opposition square this legislation with the nuclear-free zone concept and how they will vote on the issue at the end of the debate. After all, Labour Members will have to square their view on this with their supporters in my constituency and in Cleveland as a whole, where we have a nuclear power station and a nuclear-free zone.
Do Labour Members believe that certain roads should be proscribed while others should be allowed for such vehicles? The fact that the Bill would permit the transportation of radioactive material on any road anywhere is a weakness. I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, or preferably the Minister, would explain how the Bill would be amended to ensure that its defects were put right. I am surprised that the Labour party has not made its views on that clear.
The transportation of radioactive material is not something for kiddies on Saturday afternoons. We are discussing serious business. If this material is to be transported properly, it must travel in good vehicles on good roads. The Bill does not stipulate what types of roads will be used and whether some roads, such as narrow country lanes, will be banned.
Generally speaking, drivers take the shortest and quickest route, which may not be the most convenient and safest. If safety is paramount and is what this exercise is all about, drivers should be told the routes that may be used. The police and emergency services should know those routes, after they have been approved by fire and police chiefs. In other words, when speaking of the vehicles, we should also consider the roads on which they will travel, or the legislation will be defective.
Many of us have a problem that is commonly faced in Parliament with measures such as this. I approve of what is in the Bill and have no desire to stop its progress. The trouble is that it does not go far enough and it is weak and defective in certain areas. Those weaknesses allow for dangers which need our attention. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington will say that he is aware of those weaknesses and is anxious for them to be corrected. I had hoped that a Minister would confirm that and say that further legislation would be introduced to make up for the deficiencies, including transportation by rail, sea, air and canals.
I fear that the Bill will lead people into believing that they live in a fool's paradise. It will be like the nuclear-free zone sign. People believe that once they have passed the sign, they are safe. That is the biggest piece of hogwash of all time. People may equally believe that once the Bill is passed, they are safe. It could be misleading and give people a false sense of security. I want the Bill to be passed, but I want a promise that there will be further legislation. I want someone to tell me that the fears that I have expressed are well founded. If they are not, I want someone to tell me that I have got it wrong. With respect, I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, although he is the Bill's sponsor, is in a position to do that because he was not given a sufficiently good brief by the Government.
I do not suppose that those questions have been asked, probed or looked into. If they have, the Minister responsible should have been here to answer them. It is all very well to say that we came along with a nice piece of legislation, the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill, full stop, and we can now go home because it will be dead safe on the roads and the Bill ensures that the packaging is right. It might be, but as yet we have had no answers about whether the driver will be tested or the roads proscribed.
However, we are told that there will be inspectors and examiners, who will be trained using public money. We have already been told that that money has been allocated. But to what end will those officials inspect and examine and what will they be inspecting and examining—the packaging, the vehicles or, more particularly, the humans who are to drive the vehicles? Without that knowledge, there is something missing. That does not mean that the Bill is wrong—it is not. It is a good Bill, but it is weak and needs attention. It cannot and should not be allowed to rest as it stands. I shall not vote against it or urge my colleagues to do so. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington intends to call a Division at the end of the debate—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend is

shaking his head to show that he has changed his mind. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) been at him again?

Mr. John Townend: I just want to debate pigs now.

Mr. Holt: I have been speaking for not quite two hours, which is not very long.
The Bill intends to put right errors and omissions in the legislation passed in 1947. On that basis, it could be more than 34 years before there is further legislation, although I hope that it will not be that long before a Minister answers the questions that I have posed or before we have further legislation to cover some of my worries.
Despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston may tell me off for repeating myself, we should know what placard to use and what the Government's intentions are in relation to testing the humans involved. We need a definition for roads—are roads and lanes the same thing? Will the vehicles be allowed to go down lanes? None of those issues is properly explained and there are many weaknesses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington has done well in getting the Bill this far. I know the frustration of proceeding with a private Bill, only to have it rejected. I steered mine through fives votes in the House and lost it on only one vote in the Lords. It was lost on a technicality; their Lordships said that my private Bill was premature because a Government Bill was coming along behind it. The Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill is a hybrid of a Government Bill proposed via the private Members' route. It would be good if a proper Government Bill were introduced by a Minister so that legitimate questions and fears could be assuaged. But as things stand now, that is not what we have. It is almost an introductory Bill. It is as though the Government said, "There is something wrong, and has been for 30 years, and we must put it right with an introductory Bill. If anyone says anything about it, we shall simply say that it is being introduced through the private Members' route." That is not the right way to do it.
I apologise if I have spoken for a little time, but I thought it necessary to point out to the Government and others that this place is not to be taken for granted. It is a serious debating Chamber and serious issues must be treated seriously. However much levity one might introduce into one's speech, there is always a serious message. My message is that for the people of Cleveland, the Bill has not gone far enough. The Government should get their act together and introduce a proper Bill dealing with the whole area of the transportation of radioactive material. Whether or not people like it, it will be a major issue in coming years. More and more radioactive material will be used to create power and for medical purposes.
In 1947, people could no more envisage what would happen today than we can envisage what will happen in 34 years' time. The problem is that once we pass legislation, it lies for ever in front of us. Every now and then, somebody refers to an Act in 1612 or 1802 or whatever. We could be equally guilty of passing legislation that could fall into that category. I do not think that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would wish to preside over that. I do not think that my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate would wish to be parties to that. Of course, I do not know that the Minister feels.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington that it was a good try and if there is a vote I shall support Third Reading. However, the Bill has deficiencies and I have enjoyed having the opportunity to highlight them. I thank my hon. Friend and the House for their patience.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Pig Husbandry Bill

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Sir Richard Body: I beg to move, That the order for consideration of the Bill be discharged and the Bill be withdrawn.
I owe you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House an explanation for this action. I also owe it to the many thousands of people who have supported the Bill, not least the pig farmers who have campaigned for a long time for changes in the law because of the disrepute into which certain types of pig farmers have brought that sector of the industry.
This week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food published regulations on pig husbandry.
During the past day or so, I have had the opportunity to read the draft, and I could find no differences of any consequence between those regulations and my Bill. Indeed, the regulations are largely the same as my Bill, almost word for word, in all its important parts. I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for what they have done—it is quite notable.
My right hon. Friend's action has put this country ahead of the remainder of the European Community. So often, we hear that Britain is lagging behind, and are told that we must wait for the men in Brussels to take the initiative while we drag our feet. In this instance, we are doing the opposite, and I wholeheartedly congratulate the Government.
There is no doubt that the majority of pig farmers entirely support what the Government are doing in these regulations. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has given ample time for consultation. Views have been expressed, and I am delighted that the Minister has paid good heed to the representations that have been made.
Moreover, I heard this week from DG6—only some of us know about that—which is a powerful body of people in Brussels, the department of the Commission which is concerned, among other things, with animal welfare.
Dr. Jansen, who is, I understand the chief veterinary officer of the Commission in Brussels has welcomed the regulations wholeheartedly and has said that if they go through, the European Commission will go ahead and approve draft regulations that will extend throughout the Community. That means that this country will have set the pace in animal welfare and it will probably be the first time that we have done so or that the Community has done anything about animal welfare.
Also, the Commission proposes to produce quickly draft regulations that are in line with the Welfare of Animals at Slaughter Bill, which has already passed through this House and which I introduced earlier in this Session. That Bill will soon be before the other place.
In matters of animal welfare, we shall certainly be ahead of the Community in two respects, and that is something worth recording.
In a letter that is coming to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Dr. Jansen has said that as soon as the regulations are enforced, his position will be strengthened


and he will be able to put forward draft regulations. Let us hope that the Community will then follow our example. There is no reason why it should not.
Dr. Jansen and officials in the Commission take that view because there was a full conference in Brussels on the subject late last year. They reached the conclusion that there was no necessity for the practice of sow stalls and tethers, which have existed in this country for about 28 years. The practice originally came from Sweden and certain other countries are beginning to introduce it, but only on a limited scale. Therefore, the Commission hopes that the draft regulations will put a stop to any further introduction, in any part of the Community, of the close confinement of sows.
I had hoped that we would have some time for debate on the Bill because there are important issues to be discussed, but I recognise that certain hon. Members have made it perfectly plain that they did not wish it to be debated.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) here because she has expressed her views on animal welfare on other occasions, and they are not unknown to a number of people. From what I have heard from farmers in the midlands, they do not altogether share her views.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), with his usual gusto and good humour, has done his bit for those of his constituents who now have huge herds of 1,000 sows and sometimes more.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I am not sure how my hon. Friend knows what my views are on animal welfare. In the eight years I have been in the House, I have never spoken on the subject.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It must be the only one!

Mrs. Currie: As for the views on animal welfare held by farmers in the midlands, if there is an opportunity this morning I intend to express the views of farmers in my constituency on the animal welfare issues that are raised in the Bill.

Sir Richard Body: I am sure that my hon. Friend is not inclined to entice me to repeat what has been said by a number of people who have overheard her comments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Her views on the subject are known.

Mrs. Currie: They cannot be.

Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend can huff and puff, if she wishes—

Mr. Sedgemore: She is a whinger.

Sir Richard Body: —but her views on the subject are known.

Mrs. Currie: They are not.

Sir Richard Body: It is true, as my hon. Friend said, that she has not expressed her views in the House—I agree about that—but she has expressed them right enough.

Mrs. Currie: I have not.

Mr. Sedgemore: Dick knows.

Sir Richard Body: She has expressed them, but I do not intend to repeat them.

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend does not know what they are.

Sir Richard Body: Indeed I do.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. There is a motion before us for debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will keep to it. Then we shall have fewer interventions from a sedentary position from all parts of the House.

Sir Richard Body: I could invite the House to take a tour around my constituency and consider all the road schemes that may or may not be pushed through. We listened to all that for about an hour, but I shall not do that. I intend to stick to the point, but it ought to be recorded that a few hon. Members tried to prevent any debate on the Bill. I had hoped that we might debate it.
I am not concerned about the Bill going through; as I have already said, the regulations are on the way and will be approved. We shall then have all that the Bill would have done, not only in this country but throughout the European Community, for the reasons that I have just given. The battle has been won. However, I had hoped that we might have a reasonably short debate on two points, the first being the European issue with which I have dealt. The European Commission is anxious to proceed along the lines of the Bill. I had also hoped that there might be an opportunity to rebut spurious scientific evidence about the 35-day period. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington would have quoted a few scientists. I had hoped to have the opportunity to show that that evidence is mistaken and that for every scientist that my hon. Friend could produce, there are many others who would say exactly the opposite.
Pig farmers overwhelmingly take a different view from that upheld by the small band of scientists who support the close confinement of sows throughout virtually the whole of their lives. I had hoped that it would be possible to explain that neither the Bill nor the regulations need prohibit the segregation of sows. All that the Bill and the regulations do is to prevent them from being so segregated and confined that they cannot move around.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us are here today to support the Bill that he saw through its Committee stage and that we are deeply disappointed that two hon. Members have sabotaged the Bill? Such a procedure is perfectly within the Standing Orders of the House. Nevertheless, it is deeply regrettable, as the Bill received its Second Reading after a clear majority of 118 hon. Members had voted for closure.

Sir Richard Body: Three hon. Members were involved and one or two others were going to come along later to help to sabotage it. However, it was a futile exercise because we shall achieve the aims of the Bill. Unfortunately, those aims will not be achieved in an Act of Parliament, and will not be debated in detail, as we had hoped. Had hon. Members raised scientific and practical points, their concerns could have been met.
The great majority of pig farmers who do not have 1,000-sow herds are in favour of the Bill and of cleaning up pig farming.

Mr. John Townend: My hon. Friend really does not know east riding where there are pig farms of all sizes. I have not had one letter from a pig farmer opposing my stand on the Bill. I have had 100 per cent. support in opposing the Bill. I challenge my hon. Friend to come to east Yorkshire and address a meeting of my pig farmers. He will find out that he is wrong and that he does not have the support of pig farmers. Some of them are in the Strangers' Gallery. He is misleading the House. I am sorry that he is withdrawing his Bill without hearing the debate because we have the facts—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) was misleading the House? If that is the case, will he now withdraw that remark?

Mr. Townend: I apologise. I will rephrase that remark. My hon. Friend made an incorrect statement when he said that the majority of pig farmers supported the Bill. I challenge him to have a referendum with the pig farmers on that. I have a file full of letters which all—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us keep the debate in good order. The hon. Gentleman asked for an intervention. I shall try to call him later, but if he has finished his intervention I would be obliged if he would allow the hon. Gentleman responsible for the Bill to speak.

Sir Richard Body: I might be out of order if I remind the House that the only reason why I was selected by my constituency some 25 years ago was that I spoke with authority about pigs. The only reason why I chose to speak about pigs at my selection conference was that it was the one subject that I knew a bit about and I thought that I could stand up for myself on that issue.
My hon. Friend might be right about meadow units. I accept that, but they are not representative of farming or the great majority of pig farmers. I have been in the pig business for a long time and I have been to east riding four or five times to speak to audiences of pig farmers. I must say that on the last occasion I went there, they did not seem much like the majority of pig farmers elsewhere. They all arrived in Mercedes and other large cars. They did not seem to know much about pigs, but they knew all about computers and management. Some years ago a farmer in my constituency gave up pig farming. I asked him what he was going to do next and he said that he planned to concentrate on vegetables, mainly cauliflowers. I said, "That will be a tremendous difference", and he said, "No, it is all marketing. The same principles of marketing apply to pigs as to cauliflowers." That constituent had the same attitude to animal welfare as some of the farmers in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the attitude of the pig farmers of east riding towards his Bill, the public will not stand for those practices any longer? The public buy the pork that comes from the pig farmers of east riding and elsewhere and they are the principal impetus behind the worthy Bill that the hon. Gentleman is promoting.

Sir Richard Body: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, but it goes a bit further than that. The House has been discussing the matter for a long time. As long ago as 1981, the Select Committee on Agriculture spent a long

time hearing all the arguments before producing a report that was against the use of sow stalls and tethering except under certain conditions—the kind of conditions embodied in the Bill and draft regulations. When the House supported the report in 1982, there was not a dissenting voice.
Ten years ago, there were no 1,000-sow units. Huge factory farms did not exist. They were about to appear and we thought that we should jump on them then. Unfortunately, however, we did not, and the result is that we now have some units with 3,000 sows. One man who telephoned me at the weekend has 10,000 sows on a huge mega-farm—if one can call them farms. That is almost unbelievable. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), but it is not only public opinion that is against the practice; the House condemned the system through its Select Committee and in a debate on the subject as long ago as 1982.
We are making progress. We are virtually there. The regulations are on the way and, as I said, the Commission has given the assurance that it, too, will be taking action. The House can be pleased with what has been achieved. It would seem that three hon. Members—perhaps one or two more—wish to sabotage our attempts. I am afraid that, in future, they will find that rather more difficult because of the Community. I am no supporter of the way in which the Common Market operates, but we must face the fact that, in future, many of our laws will be made not by this House but in Brussels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes; the legislation on this subject and on slaughterhouses will be made elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say that this country is leading in Europe. We are ahead of the other countries, and they are following. That is an achievement, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done.

Mr. Ron Davies: In supporting the motion, I wish first to express my great sadness that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has been forced to move it. This is a sad day because the House is sending a signal to the country and to the European Community that the British Parliament will allow itself to be sabotaged—in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—and will allow vested financial interests to stand in the way of minor improvements in animal welfare.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston. I fully acknowledge the support that he has received from the Minister for the principle of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman and the Minister are two honourable exceptions in the present-day Tory party. We have seen this morning that the Tory party is prepared to sacrifice minimal improvements in animal welfare for very marginal economic benefits. I recognise that other Conservative Members who have sponsored or supported the Bill are also exceptions, but we have seen the true face of the modern Tory party in the tactics that we witnessed this morning. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt)——

Mr. Don Dixon: The bookie's runner.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend refers to the hon. Gentleman as a bookie's runner. I would not put a bet on with the hon. Gentleman and I certainly would not fancy


him running. His tactics this morning showed neither courage nor integrity. He abused the procedures of the House. He did not wish to challenge the Bill that would now have been before us, choosing instead to subvert the procedures of the House to prevent the House from discussing and deciding on the matter. His actions were both undemocratic and anti-democratic. He would have done himself more service if he had been prepared to oppose the measure openly and frankly.
The debate and the Bill deal with a cause that has inspired millions of people. By his actions this morning, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh has brought disrepute to himself, the House of Commons and the Tory party. He was not alone. He was aided by those waiting in the wings. he was preceded by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who spoke for 18 minutes, and the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who spoke for 27 minutes. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) was waiting in the wings, as was the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). They are all signatories to the amendments.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I will give way to the hon. Lady, because I have named her. However, first I wish to finish my specific point.
The amendments were not designed to improve the Bill or to allow us to debate its benefits or economic consequences. They were tabled for the express purpose of allowing those hon. Members to kill the Bill this morning.

Mrs. Currie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that I signed the amendments to the Pig Husbandry Bill. He is wrong and I ask him to withdraw that.

Mr. Davies: The record will show clearly that I accused the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South of speaking for 18 minutes. When I referred to the amendments, I specifically referred to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West and the hon. Member——

Miss Emma Nicholson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask the Chair to confirm that I did not have my name down to speak in the previous debate, that my name was not involved in any amendment and that it is a figment of Opposition Members' imagination that I was waiting in the wings to speak in the previous debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Let us cool the debate. These are matters for debate and I hope to call the hon. Lady shortly.

Mr. Davies: I do not wish to cool the debate. I am particularly angry this morning because I have seen the practices—

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I shall answer the point that the hon. Lady raised in a moment.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman going to give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member at the Dispatch Box said a moment ago that he was willing to give way in his own time. I am sure that he will do so.

Mr. Davies: Of course, I will. Faced with a lady who wishes to intervene and a lady in the Chair, I have no option but to give way. The charge against the hon. Lady is that she is a signatory to the amendment tabled for debate this morning. I refer her to the amendments—

Miss Emma Nicholson: rose——

Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady must restrain herself. She was not present while we listened for two hours to the most tedious speech from her hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh, who is a partner in her crime. I, who have been listening for two hours, take it amiss that she has been in the Chamber for only five minutes and wishes immediately to intervene. She is a party to the crime of this morning's hijack of the proceedings. She wants her hon. Friends to be allowed to give it, so she must take it for a moment.

Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: No, the hon. Gentleman should sit down. My point is that the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West is a signatory to the amendments—

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: For goodness sake, for the fourth time——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must restrain herself. The hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box said that he would give way when he had finished his point. Will she please restrain herself until he gives way to her?

Mr. Davies: My point is that the amendments were tabled for the express purpose of killing the Bill. The hon. Lady is a signatory to the amendments. If she wishes to justify that, or withdraw her name from the amendments, I willingly give way to her.

Miss Emma Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman is withdrawing from his earlier statement, when he said that I was a partner in crime and was waiting in the wings to speak in the earlier debate. Does he agree that that was incorrect? My name was not down to speak in the earlier debate. I came here to speak on the Pig Husbandry Bill. The hon. Gentleman is taking my name in vain. Indeed, he is turning out to be a classic Labour male chauvinist pig or, might I suggest, a real sorry bore.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady is perfectly entitled to her view. The record will show that my point is clear and that it was clear when I made it initially. We have had one debate already this morning. It was deliberately prolonged by the hon. Members whom I have named precisely to ensure that inadequate time remained for this debate.

Miss Emma Nicholson: rose—

Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady must restrain herself. I know that she is getting excited, but she must—

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: No. The hon. Lady must understand that when a Member is addressing the House he has a right to finish a sentence without these constant interruptions.
The hon. Lady is a party to this morning's attempt to kill the Bill. Her name is on the list of amendments. I am fully aware that she intended to come to the House to speak to the amendments to the Pig Husbandry Bill. All Labour Members know that the purpose or the amendments is to kill the Bill, as the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) made clear.

Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: No. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman now. There will be further opportunities for him to speak.

Mr. Mullin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: I shall give way to my hon. Friend because he was present for the Second Reading of the Bill. He has been in constant contact with the hon. Member for Holland with Boston and has shown himself to be supportive throughout all the proceedings of the Bill in this House, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) and for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey). If any of them wishes me to give way to them, I shall certainly do so because I know that they are concerned about improvement in animal welfare standards.

Mr. Mullin: My constituents and I care strongly about this matter. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that those responsible for this morning's sabotage and the vested interests that put them up to it do not derive any advantage from what happened? Indeed, on the contrary, does he agree that it is important that they derive a serious disadvantage and understand that their actions this morning will be to the detriment of the vested interests that they represent? I realise that my hon. Friend is about to say that a Labour Government will certainly support such a measure in the European Community and, if necessary, through legislation. Does he agree that when the issue returns to the House we should think in terms of reducing the phasing-out period from 10 to the original five years? That would signal to the vested interests that the more they carry on with this sabotage, the harder it will get for them.

Mr. Davies: That is a powerful argument and I shall return to it in a moment.
I pay full credit to the Minister who will introduce regulations which will give effect to the particular purposes of the Bill. I have told him privately and will now do so in public that we shall do all we can to facilitate the passage of that legislation.
The present difficulty arises because this is a private Member's Bill and it would be inappropriate for the party to arrange any whipping or attempt to make a party political response to the Bill. All my hon. Friends who have supported the measure have done so as private Members. It is noteworthy that when the closure was forced on Second Reading, every Labour Member who voted, supported the Bill. It is true that the Labour party is absolutely committed to not only this welfare measure but others. I give full credit also to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who represents the Liberal Democrats, who share our objectives in this matter. It is true that thus far we have been acting as private Members and that when the matter is introduced as a Government

measure, we shall give it our full support. Inasmuch as this private Member's Bill has been wrecked, I undertake that when we have a Labour Government, as I am confident we shall in the not-too-distant future, we shall review these measures.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh spoke for two hours this morning, but he has not had the courtesy to remain for this debate. However, he achieved one thing this morning: an incoming Labour Government will review the regulations. The attempt to hijack and sabotage the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston may have been successful, but that action may rebound on those hon. Members responsible. They will not be allowed to profit from their infamy.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Holland with Boston had the support of many of my hon. Friends and his colleagues when he sought to move the closure. The Bill received an unopposed Second Reading. Those hon. Members who killed the Bill this morning did not have the courage, integrity or the troops to call a Division against the Second Reading. They let the Bill go in the knowledge that they would attempt to subvert the will of Parliament at a later stage.
The hon. Member for Holland with Boston had the full support of the Government. They wanted the Bill to be amended to bring it into line with their objectives. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that we had a constructive debate in Committee when we explored the relevant issues. A number of amendments were accepted with near-unanimity which took account of the representations made, the need for the Bill and the Government's reservations. There was unanimity about attaining those objectives.
We improved the Bill and it came back to the House for what we hoped would be a formal Report stage and Third Reading. Little did we know that those hon. Members to whom I have referred would set about their task of tabling wrecking amendments with the purpose of killing the Bill.
Those hon. Members have succeeded in killing the Bill and I suppose that that is a credit to their parliamentary tactics, but it is a discredit to them as members of the human race. They have done a personal disservice to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston, who is a respected member of their party because of his support for animal welfare. Although the hon. Gentleman is a man of integrity and commitment to the cause of animal welfare, it is clear that he does not have many friends in the present Tory party. Those hon. Members, by wrecking the Bill, have done a disservice to the cause of animal welfare as the British House of Commons has been shown incapable of accepting even a minor measure that would result in minor improvements in animal welfare.
How will such actions strengthen the arm of the Minister, committed as he is to argue for animal welfare in the European Community? The Minister may argue at the EC that Britain wants to enforce the highest standards and to improve animal welfare. How will he defend his case when those who do not want to adopt the supposedly traditional British standards of animal welfare turn to him and say, "Yes Minister, but what happened to the Pig Husbandry Bill?"
Where is the great British commitment to animal welfare when financial vested interests were used to hijack the British House of Commons.

Mr. John Butterfill: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that most hon. Members will be disappointed that the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has not succeeded. I must defend the integrity, however, of my parliamentary colleagues. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) alleged that they are acting for vested interests, but I am sure that they are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of their constituents. I am quite sure that if they had an interest in such matters they would have declared it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me because I am sure that those hon. Members would, or will, declare their interests. I hope that they will have an opportunity to respond during the debate.

Mr. Davies: I am not suggesting for one moment that those hon. Members who killed the Bill will receive any personal gain from doing so. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) is wrong if he thinks that I made such an assertion. If I had done so I would have referred to the declaration of interests and I would have specified my charges. I have made no personal accusations, but vested interests have wrecked the Bill. Some of those vested interests represent the pig farmers whom the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West mentioned earlier and whom he considers with such disapproval. Those farmers might be the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Butterfill: rose——

Mr. Davies: I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman raised a phoney point of order and he should give me the courtesy of his attention when I reply to it. I suggested that they had deliberately inspired hon. Members to kill the Bill. They did so because they did not wish to be involved in the capital expenditure that would be necessary to bring about the improvements. They believed, wrongly, that they would suffer a small financial disadvantage if the Bill were passed. That is why the Bill has been killed and that is why I make the charge. The Bill is about improvements in welfare standards and it has been killed because it would marginally infringe on the financial interests of those who would be affected. That is my charge and I do not withdraw it. I am glad, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you ruled that my charge was valid. I believe that the hon. Members who have killed the Bill have done a disservice to their constituents by their actions and they have demeaned the House and themselves.
The Bill was a small but important measure. It would have brought about minor improvements in welfare and in dry stalls by preventing a practice that has been widely recognised as cruel, unnecessary and unacceptable. The Bill was important not merely because it would have prevented the practice of using stalls and tethers, but because it would have been a message that the House was prepared to legislate and to demonstrate a commitment to be at least a first step in matters of animal welfare. That is why the defeat of the Bill saddens me.
The Bill was not presented as the personal whim or crusade of one individual. It had the support of everyone who has studied the practice of sow husbandry.

Sir Richard Body: indicated assent.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Holland with Boston agrees. It was widely supported on Second Reading when hon. Member after hon. Member testified to the strength of public feeling. Hundreds of letters were written and more than 100 hon. Members took it on themselves to come to the Second Reading debate to commit themselves to the cause of the Bill. There was not only support from those of us who are public representatives, but specific and specialist support from others who had considered the Bill. The veterinary profession was almost united—the hon. Member for Holland with Boston will challenge me if I am wrong about that—in advocating the Bill. Academics who have studied husbandry have supported the Bill, as did the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Compassion in World Farming—whose Bill it was—and the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which was established to advise the Government on animal welfare and the European Commission. The Government support the principles behind the Bill even if they do not support the precise form in which it has been drafted.
Although the Bill has received broad support, it has been destroyed by the vested interests to which I referred, ostensibly to further economic interests. I believe that hon. Members who have spoken so far and who believe that they have served the financial cause of their pig-producing constituents have done them a disservice, not only for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) but for another reason: I believe that the British pig industry will be disadvantaged because consumers will begin to show a preference. The hon. Member for Bridlington may mock, but I look forward to a proper system of food labelling so that our constituents, when they do their weekly shopping, will be able to express support through their purchasing power for non-intensive systems and for systems that rear animals in conditions which they consider acceptable. The hon. Members to whom I refer therefore, have done their constituents a disservice in the financial sense.
One benefit of the Bill has been a proper debate about the impact on sow and pig rearing of the stall and tether system. All the evidence from the academics and veterinarians who have studied the matter is that the alternative systems which the Bill would encourage are more efficient pig producers than the stall and tether system. The alternative systems give a greater opportunity for breeding at a marginally faster rate. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that litter sizes and the growth of piglets are superior under the alternative systems.

Sir Richard Body: The hon. Gentleman mentioned academics and veterinarians. Does he agree that stockmen share their view? Just over a year ago, I took part in the launch of the National Herdspersons Society to try to raise the standard of stockmanship. Members of that organisation are wholly in favour of raising standards and of ending the sow stall system because it has driven out of farming so many good stockmen. They say that one cannot be a good pigman unless one likes pigs, any more than one cannot be a good shepherd unless one likes sheep. They say that one cannot support and condone the system of sow stalls on its present scale if one has any feeling for or wish to work with pigs. That view has been repeated many times by professional stockmen for many years. It was emphasised to the Select Committee on Agriculture in 1981. The prediction was made on behalf of the stockmen


that good stock men would get out of the pig industry if the sow stall system continued. We have had to learn that lesson.

Mr. Davies: : The hon. Gentleman is correct in the matters to which he has drawn our attention, as he is in so many other matters relating to farming.
The express concern of the hon. Members who have killed the Bill was that Britain would be out of step with Europe and that British interests would be jeopardised. I do not believe that. There is now clear evidence—the Minister may wish to address the point—that the Commission would have accepted the standards in the Bill and that it would have ensured that the standards were adopted throughout Europe. The cause of animal welfare in Europe has been weakened by the decision this morning.
There is some consolation in our debate. At the end of the day, victory will go to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston. He has ensured that we have had a full debate, that the public are aware of the issues, that the public have had the opportunity to express their concern and that the wide range of specialist and scientific opinion to which I referred has been given the opportunity to present its case to the House. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that his hon. Friend has ensured that when the Minister tables the regulations, stalls and tethers will be phased out. Those of us of all parties who are prepared to argue the case for animal welfare will have to acknowledge our debt to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston. I pay full tribute to him.
I understand that the Government have put the regulations out to consultation in almost final form. I have not yet had a chance to look at the proposed regulations in detail, but I understand that they will give full effect, if in a different way, to the proposals in the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on that. The regulations will have our full support when they come before the House and we will do whatever is necessary to facilitate their passage through the House.
The hon. Members who have attempted to kill the Bill this morning will not be allowed to profit from what they have done. One of the earliest acts of an incoming Labour Government's Ministry of Food and Farming will be to review all farm welfare measures. We shall then look, as a matter of Government policy, at whether the regulations now being tabled should be continued.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): I shall be brief to enable other hon. Members to take part in the discussion, and I hope that I can restore some of the harmony and consensus that existed on Second Reading and largely in Committee.
I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has had to withdraw his Bill, and I understand why he has taken that step. There was a great deal of consensus in Committee. All the issues were widely explored, particularly the vexed question of when the end of the phasing out period should be. Amendments were proposed to bring the date forward and to bring it in line with the Government's position. It is remarkable that hon. Members on both sides with deeply held views on

animal welfare concluded that the phase-out period which is now in my hon. Friend's Bill, and which will be the same in our regulations, was an appropriate time.
I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for his kind words and, at the outset, I wish to put on record firmly that the Government agree with the objectives of the Bill. As I said in Committee, we take, and will continue to take, the matter of pig welfare seriously. On every occasion I have spoken about the Bill I have said that the Government would rather the objectives of the Bill were achieved by way of regulations made under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. The House will be aware that the Bill, as amended in Committee, contains a number of tortuous formulae which are necessary only because we are working with primary legislation.
I also made it clear that we would have preferred our regulations in the first place, but, because the Bill was considerably amended in Committee, it would have had the support of the Government. We welcome it and could have lived with it. I would also have told the House today, had we dealt with the amendments, that the Government could not have accepted any of them as tabled and would have wished the Bill to have passed as it stood. But I shall not go into any of those details now. I suspect that we shall cover them when we debate the regulations, which will be laid and be dealt with under the affirmative resolution procedure.
As we have no Bill, we can have regulations instead, and I intend that that shall happen. Those regulations can be introduced quickly and relatively easily, and they will have exactly the same effect as the Bill. Officials in my Department are maintaining a draft version which mirrors the progress of the Bill. The latest version was issued for brief comment on Tuesday of this week, with a short period given for further comments to be made. We kept that measure ticking over because we believe that regulations could be better than the Bill.
We wanted a fall-back position in case this eventuality, as happened today, occurred. We gave a commitment that the Government intended to introduce regulations if the Bill fell. It now seems that the Bill will fall, so we intend to introduce the regulations.
I should give a slight warning. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston quoted the support of the Commission. I understand that although the Commission has not put a block on the regulations, the deadline for notifying the EC has not yet expired. We have until 6 May, and it is possible that there will be objections to them. If the Commission is giving us the green light, that is excellent news. If we get the Commission fully on our side, while that is good news and will allow our regulations to proceed unhindered, it will not mean that all other EC countries will fall in line pdq.
We will have a tough fight on our hands to persuade other EC countries, with the full support of the Commission if we have it, that they should follow the British lead on animal welfare. I can assure the House that when our regulations are in place—if the House agrees to them—we shall press most strongly in Brussels and other EC countries for similar legislation to apply there so that we are not at a competitive disadvantage and animals in those other countries are not at a welfare disadvantage.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said that the will of the House had been frustrated today. May I say on the Government's behalf that the will of the House will


not be frustrated today. Many hon. Members agreed with the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston and the Government would agree with it if it were amended. The regulations, which we have put out for consultation, mirror that. I give a clear undertaking that we intend to proceed with those regulations and, barring any hiccup from the Commission or our parliamentary procedure, they could and should be law by the summer.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will appreciate that there is little debating time left. I hope to call all hon. Members. If they apply common sense and speak briefly, I may be able to do so.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I shall speak for the fewest possible moments because I know the keen interest of other hon. Members to ensure that their voices are heard.
I warmly welcome the Government's adoption of measures identical to those proposed in the Bill. I read carefully everything that was said on Second Reading, for which I was present, and in Committee. I supported the Bill and its principle on Second Reading. My views on it are on the record. I asked the sponsor no fewer than five times if I could be on the Committee so that I could make some other points. He was unable to hear me in that context, which is the sole reason why I put down my name to speak today. I was glad to put my name with those of other hon. Members in support of the amendments. They are important amendments which should have been heard in Committee, and if I had been fortunate enough to be a member of the Committee I would have spoken to them then.
I am a lifetime supporter of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The deputy chief veterinary officer of the RSPCA was, at my instigation, the only speaker at a meeting of the constituency farm council of Torridge and Devon, West more than a year ago when we discussed other aspects of intensive farming.
I proposed the Slaughter of Deer Bill which, I am sorry to say, was blocked by members of Her Majesty's Opposition. It was a private Member's Bill and I accept that it was not blocked by Front-Bench spokesmen; Members of both major Opposition parties blocked it, for which I am sorry. I have a track record of speaking on animal welfare matters in the House and have put forward my own Bill.
I am glad that the Minister spoke so strongly in favour of the principles and practice of the Bill. I am also glad that he will now have time to consider the points made in the amendments. We shall perhaps have another opportunity to discuss those points with him. I welcome that and look forward immensely to working with him.

Mr. John Townend: I have no vested interest in the pig industry. I see that the "Oxford English Dictionary" defines someone with a vested interest as someone with a personal interest in the state of affairs with an expectation of gain.
I am sad that the Bill has been withdrawn. If my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) had not withdrawn it, we could have had a debate of an hour and a half and I would have had an opportunity to propose the amendments in my name. They were not wrecking amendments; I did not intend to wreck the Bill and I made an offer to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston to withdraw my opposition if he would accept my amendment dealing with the 35 days issue. We proposed that amendment on the basis of welfare as well as economics. As other hon. Members wish to speak, I am sorry that I will not have the opportunity to make those points.
My other main amendment would have prevented the Bill from coming into operation until there was equivalent legislation in other Community countries. I was saddened to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister said. When my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston said that he wished to withdraw the Bill, I thought that there would be rejoicing in east Yorkshire tonight. The pig farmers realise that their livelihoods are at risk. I tell Labour Members that as a rural Member of Parliament, it is my job to represent my constituents—just as it is the job of mining or textile Members of Parliament to represent their constituents.
There has been a clear change of Government policy——

Sir Richard Body: rose——

Mr. Townend: With respect, other hon. Members wish to speak and my hon. Friend has had a good crack today. I have been waiting all day to speak. I was prepared to speak for three hours and I would have talked out the Bill because it would undermine the British pig industry.
In March 1989, the former Minister said in a Ministry document:
It is clear that any legislation should be on a Community-wide basis.
The major objection of the pig industry is that, when moving towards a single market, the Bill would not allow them to compete on a level playing field. The Government now intend to impose regulations that will make their position very difficult.
On Second Reading, the Minister accepted that the Bill would disadvantage British trade, so I do not foresee objections from other EEC countries. He also said that the Bill had to be enacted within five years, or we would be flooded with pigmeat produced under the system that we had banned. That is likely to happen at the end of eight years because the revenue differential will be the same.
The Minister also said that the new proposals would increase running costs because
they must have a higher quality of animal husbandry and better qualified pig men. The level of the additional costs will depend on the type of system used and the value of additional inputs."—[Official Report, 25 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 617.]
We expect the Labour party not to back British industry, but we expect the Conservative party to defend British industry and British agriculture. The Minister says that he will attempt to obtain EC regulations. I do not think that there is a cat in hell's chance of that. Some 90 per cent. of pig breeding in Denmark is under the dry sow system, as is 80 per cent. in Holland and more than half in Belgium, France and Germany, and the system is expanding rapidly in Spain. In Holland, it would be practically impossible to move to loose houses because it does not have the straw.
European Governments back their farmers for political and national reasons. If we legislate as the Government suggest, our pig farmers will be at a disadvantage. Can the House imagine other Common Market countries introducing legislation to lessen the advantage to their farmers? Can the House imagine the French introducing legislation that would place further burdens on their farmers while giving our farmers an advantage? It is inconceivable.
I know that we are up against it, but we shall continue the battle. Whatever regulations the Government may introduce, if they are imposed on our industry and not on our competitors, we will oppose them. There has already been one example of that on veal calf crates. They have been abolished in Britain, so when the calves are born they go to Holland, where they are fattened in the very crates that are illegal in this country and the veal then comes back to Britain.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said that British farmers had lost an opportunity. Does he really believe that if the Bill had been passed and the cost of our pigmeat increased, the ordinary punter in the supermarket would be prepared to pay a premium for British bacon over Danish bacon? Labour Members do not live in the real world. It is difficult enough to try to sell British bacon in competition against the long tradition, heavy marketing and high quality of Danish bacon and we have made a lot of progress. However, if one attempts to appeal to a niche market—to sell to the sort of people who will make that decision—one will condemn oneself to a small part—10 or 15 per cent.—of the market.
There is a deficiency of £6 billion a year on our food account—larger than that for cars. The Government are introducing an initiative to reduce that deficiency and to increase exports of food products and decrease imports. Considering our balance of payments problems in the past 18 months, we certainly need to do that.
How can one expect our food industry to increase exports if it cannot compete on a level basis? When my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston talks about pig farmers in my constituency, he does not know what he is talking about. They vary from the smallest to the largest pig farmers. We have the largest concentration of pigs, and we are the major producers of pork in the country.
The reason why British bacon has been gaining market share is the quality and price of the bacon produced by those farmers. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston wants to go back 25 years to the old farmer in his muddy boots. He does not think that they should have desks or computers. Why have they come to meetings in nice cars? Because they are successful. One thing that the former Prime Minister did for this country was to show that we have to be successful if we are to survive. When I hear all this claptrap I think that it is a criticism of successful farmers who are able to produce more. For years the Government have been calling on farmers to produce more and to reduce imports. If they have been successful and have invested the money, they will have made profits. Therefore, they have a right to a good car, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston has a good car out of his parliamentary allowance.
I am ashamed of what has been going on and of the way in which pig farmers have been treated. I shall fight and fight again to make the Government change their mind.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The arguments used by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) did not do pig farmers a good service. I probably represent a level of pig production comparable to that which he represents. In the past few weeks, I have sat down with large-scale pig farmers and their advisers in my constituency and I am well aware that they are concerned about welfare.
If there has been a full debate on the Bill today I would have been prepared to engage in that constructive debate and to ensure that their concerns were taken into account as we move into the transitional phase. That is legitimate, as the Government have said that they will introduce regulations and I think that farmers' worries need to be considered. However, I do not in any way withdraw my support for the Bill.
One of the reasons why I support the Bill is my belief that public opinion is demanding this change of our farmers, and it does farmers no good to have representatives such as the hon. Member for Bridlington telling them that he is not interested in what the British public want or what Parliament wishes as regards animal welfare demands. Essentially, that is what the debate is about and that is what we should have been debating this morning.
I welcome the fact that the Government have said that they will introduce their own regulations in a similar format. I hope that the Minister will not regard this as a discourtesy, as it is not intended as such, but I think that his position has become clearer, and was put in more forthright way, than it was on Second Reading. Our debates on the Bill have helped to crystallise his Department's thinking and to raise the standard of the debate within the European Community.
We have to accept that there is a north-south divide within the European Community on animal welfare matters. The hon. Member for Bridlington simply says that because of that divide we have to accept that the argument must be lost. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that he does not intend to lose that argument, but will take it to the heart of the European Commission and make Britain the member that will lead the demand for improved animal welfare standards—a demand which ultimately has to penetrate the entire market. In due course, I believe that these matters will even become of greater concern outside the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Government accept that there are those involved in the industry who accept that there should he change but who say that if change must come, their ability to adapt, the time scale, the costs involved and the necessary research should all be taken fully into account. The Minister will be aware of the concern about pigs in large-scale units. However, things can happen to free-range pigs, too. They suffer from udder biting and from broken backs and legs during the lactation period. I am sure that those points would have been made in support of the amendments of the hon. Member for Bridlington, had he moved them. I should not have supported the amendments, but I would have pressed those arguments. The leading pig research unit in Scotland is in my constituency. It has said that if change is to come about—it accepts that it is the will of Government that it should come about—it will need to find ways to separate the pecking order out very early on to avoid such incidents.

Mr. Maclean: Perhaps I could reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that we intend to continue with a lot of research into this and other matters relating to alternative welfare systems for pigs during the phase-out period, to the end of 1998, and that we shall probably continue with research beyond that date.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, which was all that I was looking for in the context of this short debate.
The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has done a great service by introducing the Bill. It is a matter of great regret that he has been forced to withdraw it, although I accept that he did so in the context of regulations that are to be applied in any case. It is never satisfactory when Bills are frustrated by procedural means rather than by an honest exchange in debate and a vote on the issue, for that is when the will of Parliament determines what is to happen rather than tactical procedures. It will anger many people in the country who lobbied hard and believed that they had won the day on the Bill. The only saving grace is that the Government have had the integrity to honour the provisions of the Bill. Provided that they continue to do so, those people may be satisfied and mollified. Frankly, though they will not think much of Parliament. I could not defend Parliament's behaviour to them and I would not attempt to do so.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I, too, am sorry that the Bill is being withdrawn. I wanted to speak on behalf of my constituents. I took part in an earlier debate this morning on an issue that affected my constituents. My name is also down to speak in the debate on the Registered Homes (Amendment) Bill because I have an interest in that. I take amiss some of the remarks that were made by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), and also the uncharacteristically ungracious remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) as I came into the Chamber.
My interest has always been human welfare. Part of that has to be the provision of clean, cheap, safe food. That includes the welfare of people who work with animals. Animal welfare is of great importance. If my postbag is anything to go by, I suspect that some of those who write to me on animal welfare issues—whales, dogs or whatever—are frequently more agitated about those matters than those who write to me about human welfare issues.
The problem is that some of the animal rights proposals, which might have formed part of the Bill and might still yet form part of the regulations, are anthropomorphic. They assume that animals have the same feelings and needs as we have. They tend to forget the brutality that some species show to each other, expecially at certain times in the reproductive cycle. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to that point, and it is one to which I should like to return.
I ought to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, who introduced the Bill, that any pig farmer who supports the Bill's provisions does not need the Bill. He could introduce new rearing methods all by himself. There is no law that says that he cannot introduce different methods. He can indulge in whatever form of husbandry he is happiest with and that he feels his stock is happiest with.
There is a substantial pig farm in my constituency. I am well acquainted with Mr. John Robinson, the manager of Midland Pig Farms. I have visited the establishment on a number of occasions. It is expanding. There has been a substantial amount of investment in it, and it produces some of the finest quality meat to be found anywhere in Europe. I am very pleased that it is there. The farm does not use girths or tethers, but it does use stalls for breeding sows. The boars have plenty of room. The fattening sheds are large and comfortable. The gilts run outside. Clearly, therefore, there is a technical reason why the sows are in stalls. There is plenty of room for them not to be in stalls. That is not the problem. I understand that the main purpose of the stalls is simply to prevent the sows from rolling on the piglets, which is what would happen naturally. No doubt the animal rights people would have a fit about the death of baby pigs, and that would be the cost of changing the system.
The hon. Member for Gordon was correct in saying that there are other problems in breeding sows when put with other sows. The pig farmers in my constituency tell me that the animals fight and go in for unpleasant habits like vulva biting and general bullying. I was told that sows are not very sociable and that a sow's worst enemy is another sow. I was advised that losses of sows under the system being proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston could be as much as 70 per cent. higher than in stalls—for example, in loose housing or cubicle housing. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take those issues on board. If that is right—I can think of no reason why my constituents should tell me a lie—and if losses under the system proposed by the new legislation are 70 per cent. higher—and by losses I understand deaths of animals—what has happened to animal welfare? I stand here as an ordinary Back Bencher asking where is animal welfare if the changes intended to promote it result in the deaths of more animals and changing the system results in more cruelty.
I take on board the points that have been made about making sure that the changes proceed at the same speed throughout Europe. I am always pleased when Britain leads Europe and when we are able to show that our standards are higher than those in the rest of Europe and encourage the rest of our European neighbours to follow suit, but it is worth remembering that in Spain large numbers of stalls are being put in. We know that, because the stalls are being manufactured in Britain. We may well find ourselves importing meat produced in other countries when we have introduced regulations that restrict our own farmers.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston has seen fit to withdraw his Bill, but we look forward to what the Minister and the Government propose in future.

Mr. Roger Gale: I shall be brief, as I hope that we shall salvage something from the wreckage of this morning and that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) will be able to introduce a measure that will be of great benefit to his and my constituents.
I am particularly sorry that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) found it necessary to make the Bill a partisan matter. I have the honour to be the


vice-chairman of the all-party animal welfare group. The chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) is not known for her socialist leanings, but that group stoically and consistently has given support to the measure brought before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). It is not a partisan matter; it is an all-party matter and the all-party animal welfare group counts among its numbers large numbers of hon. Members from both sides of the House.
I am particularly sad that my hon. Friend has found it necessary to withdraw the Bill this morning, not because we have lost the measure—we have not, and I hope that the public will understand, because of the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister, that the measure will go forward—but because the wrong message may go out from the House to Europe. It is our proud boast in the House of Commons and in the country that we blaze a trail in animal welfare matters and that we have not been afraid to go before the Council of Ministers, the European Commission and the European Parliament and to say that we will not tolerate unpleasant practices that do no service to the health and welfare of the animals that we seek to protect. That is why many of us gave our forceful support to the Pig Husbandry Bill and to the measures being put forward to implement the minimum values rule on the exportation of live animals, particulary equines. Many people in the House and the country feel extremely strongly about that. It would be a tragedy if a message went out to the European Commission, the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament that suggested for one minute that we were going soft on any of these issues.
Despite what has happened this morning, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will go to the Council of Ministers and the Commission and say, with all the force that he can muster, that the United Kingdom will continue to blaze a trail in Europe on animal welfare matters. I hope that he will be neither ashamed nor afraid to say that long and loud and that we will never tolerate practices that do not coincide with animal welfare.

Mr. William Hague: My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) will recall from the Second Reading debate that my principal concern about the Bill was that it might introduce unfair competition. It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about the initiatives that may come out of directorate general 6. That is most encouraging. If there were real determination in the European Commission and across the Community to tackle the issue as one Community, we would all happily accept and support any initiative that resulted. But some of us are still a bit sceptical—as the House heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend)—whether such unity of action will be forthcoming, and my hon. Friend the Minister urged caution in that respect. It is easy to get the Commission to talk about things. It is much harder to get it to agree on them and enforce them throughout the Community. Certainly what we have heard from Italian Ministers and other Italian sources in the past couple of weeks has not in any way suggested that it will be easy to achieve European Community agreement on these matters.
We look to my hon. Friend the Minister to press the matter in Europe before he introduces regulations in place of the Bill. We look to him, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said, to blaze a trail and say that if we are to take action, we expect the European Community to fall into line and adopt the same procedures—otherwise, as the Minister implied, British farmers will be at a competitive disadvantage.
It is because some of us were, and remain, worried about that, that we tabled reasonable amendments to the Bill which would have been considered had my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston not sought to withdraw it. We have every right to resent the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who accused us of tabling wrecking amendments. The hon. Gentleman also spoke disparagingly of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) on the grounds that he left the Chamber when he had finished speaking. The hon. Gentleman has now done exactly the same himself. The hon. Gentleman accused my hon. Friends and me of representing vested interests and of committing a crime by tabling amendments in an attempt to defend our constituents' interests. We are meant to defend our constituents' interests; that is one of the reasons why we come to the House. I hope that if, in a few years' time, the hon. Gentleman tables amendments to legislation that threatens businesses in his constituency, he will not be accused of committing a crime or of representing vested interests just because he is attempting to alleviate matters. The hon. Gentleman's speech was foolish and intemperate and, following it, he has sunk in stature as an Opposition spokesman. He must have been taking too many lessons from the Leader of the Opposition, who often displays a similarly intemperate and ineffective manner. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had remained to hear my remarks. He will have to read them instead.
My hon. Friend the Minister should press as hard as he can in Europe for a common European agreement. I urge him also to meet again those of us who are concerned about the effects of the regulations to discuss whether there are other ways in which they can be improved. It is difficult to over-emphasise the importance of fair competition—a level playing field, to use the cliché that we hear so often in agriculture debates these days.
There is a serious danger for the pig industry in Britain. It has not had any special support. It has not relied on subsidies. It has had to cope with a free market in recent years and it has done so without the support of the taxpayer. The industry would be asked to compete with one had tied behind its back if the regulations were passed without European Commission agreement on them. We would probably see more pigmeat imported into Britain, produced by the very system to which people have objected—the stall and tether system.
I am sceptical about the argument that the consumer will lead the way by looking for meat that is produced in a better way. We are short of evidence about that. Price still dominates, so the importance of European agreement is high. If we did not have European agreement, we would once again have shot ourselves in the foot. We always seem to be more keen—rightly so—than our European Community partners on enforcing regulations.
The Minister has already reassured the House, but I want him to take away from the debate the message from many of us that we look to him to press the matter with the utmost vigour in the European Commission and the


Council of Ministers. I hope that he will also pay attention to the misgivings that many of us have—they were the reasons behind one of our amendments, although it was not a wrecking amendment. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Caerphilly back in the Chamber. I have been talking about him in his absence and now he has come back to listen to the rest of what I have to say. I remind him that our amendments were not wrecking amendments. They were designed to improve the legislation in the interests of our constituents.
One amendment dealt with the first 35 days after weaning. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of that amendment and listen again to the arguments. The first 35 days are a particularly important time in the 165-day cycle of the sow. The greatest problems of stock management and welfare arise in the first 35 days after weaning, if one does not have either a good stockman —my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston knows a great deal about good stockmanship—or a stall system. It is in the first 35 days that the stockman's skills are most often required. One needs ease of access to the sow, easy identification of the sow and calm conditions in which to look after the sow. A good stockman can provide those things, but the skills are in short supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston gave good reasons why they are in short supply. But the fact is that they are in short supply and that is the position with which we must deal. Perhaps we do not disagree on that.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen to the arguments about the vulnerable time in the cycle of the sow. Certainly, that is the point about which pig farmers in my constituency are more worried than anything else.

Their opinion is that enormous damage would he done to the industry if the measure were adopted in this country but not in other European Community countries, and that the greatest damage would be due to the implications for the first 35-day period. The condition of sows in that period varies greatly. They often require individual attention. They have lost their strength from the milk that has been drawn out of them in previous weeks and they need to be looked after individually. It is also important——

Ms. Harriet Harman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have the Minister for Health here. This morning 600 job cuts were announced at Guy's hospital. Now this afternoon we hear that 300 more jobs are to go at the Bradford hospital trust. The Government are standing by doing nothing while their business managers are cutting the national health service. The Minister is here; will she come to the Dispatch Box?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady makes her point at 2.30 pm, I shall deal with it then.

Mr. Hague: It is also important that people understand that during that 35 days serious injuries can often occur. Sows bully and become aggressive towards each other as they try to establish a social hierarchy. That is another reason why particular attention must be paid to the first 35-day period. Again, I hope that my hon. Friend listens to that argument.
Normally towards the end of that 35-day period farmers carry out a pregnancy test, for which they require sows to be still. They use what appears to be head-bone apparatus—

It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — Hospitals (Job Losses)

Ms. Harriet Harman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning I raised a point of order calling for a Minister in the Department of Health to come to the House to take responsibility for and explain the cut of 600 jobs at Guy's hospital trust. The Minister was not available. We now have a Minister present. We have had further news that 300 jobs are to go in Bradford as a result of the setting up of a hospital trust. The Government are standing by and Ministers are failing to take responsibility while their business managers butcher the health service. Are we prepared to let this go on, or will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, use your influence to bring the Minister to the Dispatch Box to answer our points?

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I represent one of the Bradford constituencies and both St. Luke's and the Bradford royal infirmary treat my constituents. The announcement that 300 jobs are to go is a real blow to the people of Bradford. I urge you to support our request for the Minister for Health to make a statement because this is a serious and important matter. Just as we predicted, £7 million is being cut from the national health service budget through the trust in Bradford. The trust has nothing to do with the NHS. It represents the enemies within the NHS, and it is time that we had a statement.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. These matters are raised in the House of Commons because they are relevant to people outside. The House of Commons should debate the matter. The Government who introduced the legislation on opting out, which has already resulted in 900 job losses at two hospitals, have a duty to explain why this has happened. Furthermore——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I have listened carefully to the three points of order, all of which are related. As the House knows, on Fridays statements are made at 11 o'clock.

Mr. Skinner: There was none.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Allow me to finish. I know full well that no Minister has informed Mr. Speaker that he or she wishes to make a statement today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Order. If the Minister for Health wishes to raise a point of order, of course I shall hear it.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important to make it clear that the whole philosophy behind the reforms in the health service is——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has not given permission for a debate on this matter. If the Minister wishes to raise a point of order with me, I must listen to it.

Ms. Harman: Further to that point of order——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister cannot make a statement on which she will take questions. Is she raising a point of order?

Mrs. Bottomley: indicated dissent.

Ms. Harman: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy speaker. Could the Minister, further to this point of order, please say that she will make a statement to the House on Monday about the cuts in services under the hospital trusts?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must pursue these points of order on Monday when we resume our next parliamentary business.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you and your colleagues do something about the fact that the Government have abused our proceedings today? At 8.30 am I alerted the Minister's office to the fact that I intended to raise in the House today the cuts at Guy's hospital and that the matter should be dealt with. I was told that two Ministers in the Department of Health were available in London throughout the morning.
Subsequently, we debated the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill. Although it is technically a private Member's Bill, we know that it is supported by the Government and that they sought a private Member to introduce it. There was a speech of two and a half hours on that Bill and, although it did not prevent the passage of the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill, it stopped the Pig Husbandry Bill being debated to a conclusion. In all probability, that Bill would have had the support of the House. All that time we did not hear a word nor receive a visit from a health Minister.
It is not good enough for the Minister for Health to come to the House now simply to say, if she was minded to do so, that the Government have no responsibility. I am sure that the hon. Lady intended to say that the whole idea behind the health service reforms is that Ministers will not answer for independent, self-governing trusts. That is unacceptable.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that I can help the House. Mr. Speaker has ruled that it will not be too late for him to hear applications on this matter on Monday. The matter must now be left to our next parliamentary day—Monday next.

Orders of the Day — Private Members' Bills

REGISTERED HOMES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Read the Third time, and passed.

BUILDING CONVERSION AND ENERGY CONSERVATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 May.

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 May.

YOUNG PERSONS (ALCOHOL ABUSE) ETC. BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Second Reading what day?

Mr. Don Dixon: On behalf of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 3 May.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her perogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 July.

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill has not been printed, so I cannot put the Question.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 May.

FORESTRY COMMISSION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill has not been printed, so I cannot put the Question.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 May.

MENTAL HEALTH (DETENTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

HARE COURSING BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

RESERVE FREE TRAVEL SCHEME (LONDON) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill has not been printed, so I cannot put the Question.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (ANIMAL TESTING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Don Dixon: On behalf of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 3 May.

PARISH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Dixon: On behalf of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 3 May.

COAL IMPORTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Dixon: On behalf of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 3 May.

HOSPITAL SCHOOLS IN LONDON BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 May.

SMOKE DETECTORS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question put and agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I must tell him that, although I have no power to prevent him from doing so, Mr. Speaker has made it clear on many occasions that he very much disapproves of the House taking a Committee stage without notice. I hope that that has been noted.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 30th April, the Motions in the name of Mr. Francis Maude relating to Estimates and Supplementary Estimates 1991–92 (Class VIII, Vote 14) (Community charge and rate rebate grants, emergency assistance to local authorities, non-domestic rates outturn payments, etc. England), (Class XVm Vote 22) Rate rebate grants, transitional relief and community charge reduction grants, Scotland) and (Class XVI, Vote 11) (Rate rebate grants and community charge reduction grants, Wales) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and, if those proceedings have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at that hour put successively the Questions necessary to dispose of them—[Mr. David Davis.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 1st May, if proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. John MacGregor relating to Broadcasting, &amp;c., have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at Seven o'clock put the Question or Questions necessary to dispose of them, including the Questions on any Amendments to the said Motions which he may have selected—[Mr. David Davis.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Hospitals (Job Losses)

Ms. Harriet Harman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you accept an application under Standing Order No. 20 for an emergency debate at the earliest opportunity on the cuts in the national health service?

Madam Deputy Speaker: As I have told the hon. Lady and the House, Mr. Speaker will consider the matter on Monday morning. I advise the hon. Lady to make an application to him then.

Orders of the Day — Antarctica

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Health rose to her feet and said a few words, but declined to continue. Will you inform Mr. Speaker that a Minister was here but, on the advice of another Minister, decided to keep her mouth shut instead of being accountable to Parliament. The Minister was attempting to contribute. Perhaps that will help Mr. Speaker to make up his mind to accept an application for a debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Mr. Speaker is aware of what takes place in the Chamber. Hon. Members are now taking time from the Adjournment debate. I hope that they understand their responsibility in making points of order at this stage.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with all the points of order relating to that.

Mr. Roger Gale: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a fresh point of order?

Mr. Gale: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It must be a matter for the record that the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was a travesty. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health was prepared to speak, but you, Madam Deputy Speaker, ruled her out of order.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to say that I shall block all Government business until we have a statement about Guy's hospital.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The subject that I am raising is of great importance both to what goes on in the House and to the views of millions of people around the country. More significantly, we are at the apex of a decision about the future of one of the world's last great wilderness areas—the Antarctic.
The British Government's role in the discussions about the future of the Antarctic is not only less than helpful, but positively dangerous for the protection of a fragile ecosystem whose destruction would have enormous consequences for the whole world. We have an opportunity to make a decision that the great wilderness area should be declared a wilderness park for the benefit of all humankind. In doing so, we could show our concern to preserve the wilderness area. Alternatively, we can go down the road of smash, grab and destroy, to which the minerals exploration charter, which the British Government are pursuing, would lead us.
The Antarctic has fascinated many people over many centuries. One of the greatest poems in English, "The Ancient Mariner" by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, describes the voyage of Captain Cook in which he discovered for


Europeans much of the Antarctic. Coleridge gives a brilliant description of the fragile ecosystem in the Antarctic. He writes
And ice, mast-high, came floating by,
As green as emerald.
That is an evocative description of a beautiful and wild place.
Tragically, Captain Cook, although a wonderful ecologist who sought to preserve the ecosystems that he discovered and whose writings sought to preserve what he recognised, was killed because of a misunderstanding in the Pacific. Unfortunately, his discovery of channels into the Antarctic led to the destruction of many of the sea mammals there. It led to the whaling industry, which came mainly from Britain. The carnage of the whales of the Antarctic followed and the subsequent damage to the water ecosystem was incalculable. Some of the damage has been repaired by the growth of fish stocks but the whale is still, tragically, a seriously endangered species. The world is at last waking up to the wondrous nature of the whale and to the need to preserve it. However, we must recognise that in our destruction of the whale population, we are destroying one of the largest and most intelligent mammals on this planet. If we continue that destruction, it will lead to the whale's extinction. There is a lesson for us in our treatment of the whale and especially of the huge blue whale. If we allow that treatment to continue, we shall contribute to the destruction of the whole continent of Antarctica.
The history of the Antarctic reveals the acquisitive nature of mankind, which has gone to the area to take from it and to destroy it. However, some have sought to recognise the beauty of Antarctica and to preserve it. Others have sought to exploit it for the potential mineral wealth beneath it. We must recognise that much of the scientific work there has been valuable. Joe Farman's discovery with the British Antarctic Survey of the existence of the hole in the ozone layer was possible only because scientific research was being undertaken in the Antarctic. I stress that it was scientific and not commercial research. Similarly the discovery through drilling into the ice cap of the levels of impurity in the world's atmosphere 100 years ago, 500 years ago and 1,000 years ago was possible only because the Antarctic is an area of peace and of scientific discovery and because it is not an area of commercial exploitation—yet.
We should recognise that if we do not protect what is there, we are destroying not only an ecosystem, but the possibility of discovering more of the damage that human activity has already done to the world's environment—the air and the seas. We shall pollute and destroy for ever something that is incredibly beautiful and incredibly fragile. Antarctica is a dry place and a fragile ecosystem which is easily destroyed.
A fuel oil spill from a survey ship that was minor by world standards did enormous damage in the Antarctic. Damage has been caused through the construction of runways and bases and the bad management of some of the bases has also caused great damage. We should think of the consequences of the Exxon Valdez disaster, which was terrible for Alaska. We should think of the damage caused to the Gulf by the oil spills, which continue. If we

translate that to the coldest part of the world, we find that there is less natural biodegradable action by the sea to resurrect what was there.
The Antarctic is a fragile place. That concern about the fragility of its environment led to expeditions and explorations and finally to the 1959 treaty, which was a remarkable document for its time. That treaty was signed at the height of the cold war by many nations which recognised the Antarctic as a place of peace, of scientific exploration and of the free movement and publication of all information discovered there.
But there have been ominous movements in recent years, leading up to the minerals convention of 1988. Those ominous movements saw the Antarctic not as a place of scientific research—a place to be preserved for its wonder and beauty for future generations—but as a place from which minerals could be exploited.
The British Government led the way in promoting the minerals convention and put through the House the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989, which included some fundamental changes in policy towards the Antarctic. I will explain two of those changes. For the first time, it was said that the exploration of minerals in the Antarctic could take place for commercial purposes and that the information gained from the exploration, being of commercial value, should be in the ownership of the mineral or oil company. Once we allow the exploration of potential mineral resources, as sure as night follows day, those who have invested millions in that exploration will want to exploit those resources.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the commitment and knowledge that he showed during the passage of that measure. I assure him that there is a fundamental divide between the Front Benches on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made it clear in Madrid on the eve of the conference that the Labour party agreed that this last wilderness should be a world park and that the next Labour Government would not be in any way bound by what the British Government decided at the Madrid conference. It is crystal clear that the position of the Government—what can only be described as a messy compromise—is unsustainable and has been fatally holed by the move by Japan announced earlier this week.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which underlines the importance that the Opposition parties place on Antarctica. We believe that an incoming Labour Government would support the idea of a world wilderness park and would not allow the headlong rush, which the British and American Governments seem keen to pursue, in favour of the minerials convention and the environmental destruction that will result.
When the Antarctic Minerals Act first appeared in the House from the other place, little interest was shown in it, either in Parliament or outside. I strongly compliment the work of the Worldwide Fund for Nature, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace in promoting discussion and understanding about the issue, resulting in the avalanche of letters that hon. Members have received. As a result, the Antarctic is, and will remain, a major issue and a crucial decision must now be taken.
The British Government's role in all this resulted in support for the CRAMRA initiative—the convention and the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities.


When we promoted the idea of a world park in Committee and on the Floor of the House when the 1989 measure was debated, the Government said that the world park idea had little support and that its creation was not possible. They thought that the only way to protect the Antarctic was by the minerals convention.
I do not accept that. No one nation should seek to grab parts of the Antarctic for itself. An examination of the map of the area reveals that an amazing series of conflicting territorial demands are being made. Chile claims one bit, Argentina another, while another part is claimed by both. The United States claims some, as does Britain, and the list goes on. Virtually every piece of land that forms the Antarctic is claimed by some country.
We cannot allow the idea of territorial claims to get in the way of what must be done to protect the area. Nor can we hand the future of the Antarctic over to the world's oil and mineral companies. It must be settled on an international basis, and the only way to do that is to accept that it is a zone of peace, of non-military activity and of scientific research, so long as all the results of that research are published. Once we allow the idea of commercial ownership of the results of research to enter into the matter, we face serious problems.
At the conference in Vina del Mar in Chile last year, the British Government pursued their idea of a minerals convention, for which there was some support and some opposition. Thankfully, that conference did not decide to support the minerals convention or mineral exploration. Instead, its delegates deferred decision for an environmental assessment, largely promoted by the then Government of Chile, to the Madrid conference which is now taking place.
Matters have changed dramatically at the Madrid conference. Far from being alone and isolated, as New Zealand and Australia were to begin with in their support of world park, their proposal has now come much more into the mainstream of discussion. New Zealand and Australia fully support the idea of a world park, as do a number of other countries, including France. That is important because the power of those countries in support of that idea are considerable.
A large majority of countries have basically supported the notion of a world park or, at least, a long moratorium on mining activities. That majority includes the Soviet Union, which now appears, in the words of President Gorbachev, to support the idea of the protection and preservation of the continent rather than its destruction and exploitation. Among those countries which apparently have the least concern for the environment of the Antarctic are Britain and the United States. It is important that the British Government put on record today their exact intention and what they are doing at the Madrid conference.
The case for a world park is overwhelming. If we turn our backs on the idea of a world park, we shall get mineral exploration, with companies rushing in in Klondike-like competition—perhaps not this year or next year, but in five or 10 years' time. Those companies will be more concerned about what they can get out of the ground of the Antarctic than about protection of the fish stocks, the atmosphere and the land on which they are working. First and foremost at stake for those companies will be commercial interests, and scientific research will take second place. Research into the effects of the pollution of the air over centuries is not of commercial interest,

whereas the exploration of oil, coal, manganese, tin and other minerals is. Therefore, there will be a gradual twist and the destruction will continue for a long time.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is not there a risk of military conflict arising if there are disagreements about the claims made under the minerals convention?

Mr. Corbyn: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point because, while the 1959 treaty debars military activity and the deployment of forces in the Antarctic, it is unclear who could give the authority for mineral exploration. Clearly, national Governments would want to support what they would perceive to be the interests of nationally owned or nationally recognised oil and mineral exploration companies. Then the potential danger of military action in the Antarctic, which my right hon. Friend rightly exposed, becomes a much more serious threat.
My case is perfectly simple and is, I believe, strongly and widely supported by millions of people around the country. The executive director of Greenpeace, Lord Melchett, sent a letter to a Foreign Office Minister this week stating:
In your letter to MPs on 25 March 1991, you said: 'We now believe that consensus may be achieved through a moratorum on mineral prospecting and exploitation activities and we intend to promote this with our Treaty partners.'In fact, in Madrid, your representative said in his opening statement to the meeting, that the UK Government's preferred position was to see the minerals regime, CRAMRA, enter speedily into force, that the Government believe an unqualified ban on mining is irrational, and that you are upset at the rejection by other nations of the minerals regime.
The letter concludes:
Further, if you are genuinely interested in consensus, I challenge you to say that you welcome the Japanese change of heart, and their statement that: It is important that all the Consultative Parties undertake strenuous efforts to reach consensus on the regulation of mineral resources activities at the Madrid meeting. Based on this consideration, the delegation of Japan is now in favour of a prohibition of mineral resource activities … (for) an indefinite period.
Millions in this country and many more around the world see that as a decision of great importance, because we are saying that we can no longer look on every corner of the world as a place to exploit for minerals. Instead, we should look to stop, protect and learn from what is there. People see the Madrid conference as a possibility of the world turning a corner on environmental and ecological issues. The Government are among those who are obstructing the wishes of millions of people to preserve Antarctica as a wilderness park for future generations. I hope that the opportunity provided by this debate will persuade the Government to say that they, like the Japanese, have had a change of heart and will now support the concept of a world wilderness park in Antarctica.

3 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on raising this subject, about which he knows a great deal, at this timely moment. As he said, the meeting in Madrid that is considering these matters will continue until 30 April. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall move rather fast, as I wish to put the Government's position on the records before I sit down.
The future of Antarctica is a matter of considerable and justifiable public concern, with which the Government are in full accord. The meeting in Madrid will be an important


stage in developing a consensus for the protection of Antarctica. I emphasise the word "consensus" because there can be no way forward without consensus. It is from that premise that our policy on Antarctica stems.
Our exploration and scientific work in the area is second to none. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have been involved in that part of the world for many years. Britain was first involved this century in 1908, and we were prominent in the drafting of the Antarctic treaty, which came into force in 1961, and to which the hon. Gentleman paid tribute. That treaty forms the heart of the Antarctic treaty system that manages, by consensus, all Antarctic affairs. It developed as a mechanism to deal with the escalating quarrels about the exercise of sovereignty in the Antarctic following the second world war. Its achievements have been substantial. Geo-strategic and sovereignty considerations together with super-power rivalry, were all factors that the treaty system had to encompass and tame.

Mr. Corbyn: rose——

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall give way, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not seek to intervene again.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Government now give an undertaking to release to the Public Record Office all Cabinet discussion documents relating to mineral exploration and military activities in the Antarctic, rather than hiding behind the 50-year rule, as they are now doing?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman takes me by surprise. I cannot give such an undertaking—indeed, it would not be possible to do so in an Adjournment debate.
Later, the treaty also had to weather the conflicts that emerged in the north-south domain with proposals that would allow the continent to be exploited. For 30 years, it has proved itself effective in fulfilling its objectives. As an example of long-term international co-operation and collaboration, it is unparalled. For that reason, the maintenance of the Antarctic treaty system is the cornerstone of British policy in Antarctica.
For much of the treaty's 30-year existence, public interest in Antarctica has been limited, while a good deal of valuable work has been carried out by scientists, especially in the conservation of marine resources. The hon. Gentleman touched on that. We both know that the situation has changed dramatically. Public opinion is now seized of the importance for the whole world of Antarctica. Much of that attention is due to the excellent scientific work of the British Antarctic Survey. We know that the existence of the hole in the ozone layer was first brought to the attention of the world by that survey. Britain has long foreseen the need for environmental protection in Antarctica.
Although the environmental provisions in the existing Antarctic treaty system are far reaching, we believe that they need further strengthening to bring them into line with what we now know about environmental protection. We also recognise that a number of threats to Antarctica need to be dealt with as a priority. That includes not only mineral activity, although that aspect has now taken the limelight and is the focus of public attention. Debates on a ban on mineral activities failed to lead to agreement amongst Antarctic treaty consultative parties, and so later

we were one of the prime movers in proposing a convention on minerals to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
In supporting the minerals convention, we argued against those who wished to retain the right to mine unilaterally and insisted that there were strict environmental safeguards. That was the purpose of our being involved in proposing the convention.
Six years later as the hon. Gentleman said, the convention was adopted by consensus after hard negotiation. We considered it to be a breakthrough. The convention was signed by 19 countries, including the United Kingdom, and would have prohibited the exploration and development of mining in Antarctica, unless agreed by all parties. In effect, it would have been an indefinite ban on mining, since any member could have vetoed indefinitely any application to mine.
However, it is now recognised that we are in a different position and we wish to pursue consensus. By imposing a legal framework to deal with any application for mineral activity that might be approved, those 19 countries which had signed the convention believed that the door had been opened just enough to encourage countries that might consider mineral exploration at some time in the future to abide by the rules. The signatories believed that a simple no to any mineral activity permanently would be in danger of being ignored completely, leading to an unregulated free-for-all. However, we now accept that there will not be a consensus on the basis of that convention and, as we wish to seek consensus, we are prepared to consider other ideas. As the hon. Gentleman said, just one year later, a number of countries, following Australia and France, announced that they would not sign.
For that reason, we moved quickly to call a meeting to discuss comprehensive measures for the protection of the Antarctic environment. The first session of meetings on this subject was held initially in Chile last November. The second is the current meeting in Madrid.
At the meeting in Chile, we proposed an environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty, which was to form a broad framework on environmental protection, to be supplemented by annexes dealing with individual topics. This was to deal with the most immediate problems. Our environmental protocol approach was the one which found favour with the majority of the delegations. For it is of gravest concern to us and to them that significant progress should be made on the threats from marine pollution, tourism and waste disposal. The hon. Gentleman mentioned damage to that delicate environment caused by oil pollution, and I entirely endorse what he said.
The British Antarctic Survey is also involved in an extensive clean-up of British bases—no mean feat when wastes accumulated over many years, in the days when everyone was less environmentally aware. Little publicity is given to the efforts of the British Antarctic Survey in cleaning up Antarctica, but on this question also Britain's record is second to none. When compared with all those immediate threats of pollution to the Antarctic environment, the threat from mineral activity begins to take on a less immediate perspective.
The exploitation of minerals, if it is ever to take place, is for the far future, for no one knows whether there are any viable mineral deposits in Antarctica. No one knows whether they can mine, no one has the technology and no one has yet shown any inclination to do so. We always


recognised that the discovery of abundant minerals in Antarctica would have a profound effect on the operation of the Antarctic treaty. Those countries that now demand a permanent ban on mining, but one supported by no legal safety net in the event of its collapse, are threatening the Antarctic treaty system. It is this weakening of that system that we fear most.
In the Antarctic treaty debates, various proposals have been made. Our concern is to ensure that the Antarctic treaty system deals with the mineral question before minerals are discovered. The way to do that, it seems to us, is to reach agreement that minerals activity can be carried out only if that would be compatible with the preservation of the Antarctic environment. Once we reach agreement on that, we can relax. Until we do so, we should have a prohibition on mineral activity. Let there be no doubt about that. At the meeting in Madrid, our delegation is promoting our proposal for a renewable ban, as was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) in his letter to all Members of Parliament on 25 March.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) mentioned the word "park", which was also mentioned in public recently by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). It is still an ill-defined concept. We do not know quite what is being proposed. No one at the Madrid conference has raised it. It is not a matter for discussion. If concrete proposals were ever put forward, we should examine them, but while they are vague, we must be sceptical. For example, would a marine park prevent our legitimate continuing scientific work in the Antarctic environment? Such a concept would be

unacceptable, if it were to include that. We do not know. The hon. Gentleman nods, but, with great respect, we have not had the details.

Mr. Anderson: No one has a closely defined position, but what is clear is that it would prevent mining operations. Do not the Government accept that their position has been wholly undermined as, kicking and screaming, they move from compromise to compromise? The Government's position, as they approach Madrid, has now been undermined by the switch in Japanese policy.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question because I must finish my remarks. However, he ought to look at the Japanese proposals most carefully before he draws complete and clear-sighted conclusions from them.
Our position does not, we believe, create expectations of the inevitability of mining in the future. Rather, it recognises that it may indeed be a possibility and that we should have a plan to cope with it. That is realism rather than fanciful idealism. Common sense tells us that this must be right.
Our objective is most certainly the protection of the Antarctic environment. In order to achieve it, we must ensure that the Antarctic treaty parties return to consensus as soon as possible. It is no use proceeding unilaterally. That is our objective. Our delegation at Madrid is working to achieve that precise consensus. I hope that the House will support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Three o'clock.